Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Southern Railway Bill.

London and North Eastern Railway Bill.

Newcastle and Gateshead Waterworks Bill.

Bills committed.

Private Bills (Substituted Bills),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, introduced pursuant to the provisions of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Acts, 1899 and 1933, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Glasgow Corporation Bill (Substituted Bill).

Lanarkshire County Council (Substituted Bill).

Private Bills [Lords] (Substituted Bill),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in respect of the following Bill, intended to be introduced pursuant to the provisions of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Acts, 1899 and 1933, which the Chairman of Ways and Means had reported as intended to originate in the House of Lords, they have certified that the Standing Orders have been complied with, namely:

Ayr County Water Bill [Lords] (Substituted Bill).

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

FOREIGN IMPORT QUOTAS AND DUTIES.

Mr. MALLALIEU: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can supply the names of the countries which have made changes in the import quotas of British goods since January, 1934, in each case stating whether such changes were increases or decreases?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): Changes in import quotas, affecting United Kingdom goods to a greater or less degree, have been made since January, 1934, in a large number of countries, including Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece, Hungary, the Irish Free State, Italy, the Netherlands, Netherlands East Indies, Persia, Rumania, Spain, Switzerland and Turkey. The general tendency of the changes made abroad has been to reduce imports from this country of the articles affected, but there are certain exceptions, particularly in the case of countries with which trade agreements have been concluded.

Mr. MALLALIEU: Is the right hon. Gentleman able to say which of the countries are now taking more of each of those British goods than they took in 1931?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I could not reply without notice. If the hon. Member will put a series of questions on the Paper, I shall be glad to get the information.

Mr. HANNON: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether in cases of this nature an exchange of views takes place between this country and the country concerned before any reduction or increase of quota takes place?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot say that there is an exchange beforehand, but immediately there is an opening we take advantage of it.

Mr. MALLALIEU: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can supply the names of the countries which have made changes in their Customs duties on British goods since January, 1934, in each case stating whether such changes were increases or decreases?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Since January, 1934, there have been more or less important alterations in Customs duties, which have affected United Kingdom goods, in Belgium, Bulgaria, China, Estonia, France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Mexico, the Netherlands and Netherlands East Indies, Switzerland, Turkey, United States, some South American Republics, most of the self-governing Dominions and India. Minor changes have also been made in many other countires, including some of the colonies. In most cases the general tendency was in an upward direction. In Empire countries, however, except the Irish Free State, and in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, the changes in duties on United Kingdom goods were generally in the direction of reductions. The same will be true of Poland when the new Trade Agreement comes into force. It is unfortunately true that in recent years the general tendency throughout the world has been to increase Customs duties; but the Trade Agreements with the Ottawa Dominions and with foreign countries have resulted in numerous ameliorations in favour of this country. Moreover, in many other instances the countries concerned undertook not to increase Customs duties on United Kingdom goods.

Mr. MALLALIEU: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that that rather indicates that the late Mr. William Graham was more successful than he in reducing tariffs and other restrictions on our goods?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The only comment I make is that, unless we had these trade agreements, things would be a good deal worse than they are.

Mr. HANNON: May I again ask the President of the Board of Trade how this increase of Customs duties is brought about? Are there representations made to the Government of this country first before the duties are imposed, and is it the case, when an agreement is signed, that no increased duties can be imposed?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: So far as the trade agreements are concerned, the foreign countries which are signatories must abide by the conditions. It is not customary to give notice beforehand of any increase of duty.

Mr. HANNON: Then these foreign countries impose these duties on our goods without giving any notice to this country at all?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Not only upon our goods, but upon the goods of other countries too.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is there any inconsistency between the action of foreign Governments and the action of this country towards other countries?

RUSSIA (BRITISH CONTRACTS).

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many contracts for Russia were executed by West of Scotland firms during the past year, and their total value; what were the comparative figures for 1933, and if, in addition to Messrs. Colvilles, Limited, and the Steel Company of Scotland, there are any other firms engaged on contracts for Russia; the total value of contracts for Russia carried out in Scotland during the past 10 years; and whether it is the policy of the Board of Trade to encourage trading between both countries, with a view to reducing unemployment and facilitating commercial development?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I regret that detailed information regarding contracts for Russia is not available. As regards the last part of the question the object of the temporary commercial agreement concluded a year ago was the improvement of commercial relations between the United Kingdom and Russia.

ITALY (IMPORT RESTRICTIONS).

Mr. GEORGE HALL: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now make a statement as to the result of the representations made to the Italian Government against the restrictions placed upon coal and other goods imported into that country?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I regret that I cannot at present add to the replies previously given on this subject. Discussions with the Italian Government are actively proceeding and I hope to be able to make a further statement very shortly.

CHINESE EGGS.

Mr. HANNON: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade to state the quantities of Chinese eggs imported into this country in the first two months of the
years 1933, 1934 and 1935 in the shell and in liquid or frozen condition in respect of these periods?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: All the desired information will appear in, the issue of the accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom for February, 1935, which will be published on Thursday next. The particulars for the first two months of 1933 and 1934 are shown in the issue of the accounts for February, 1934.

Mr. HANNON: Would my right hon. Friend say whether the import of this article is on the increase or otherwise?

Mr. WEST: Is it true or not that these Chinese eggs are produced under most filthy conditions, and, if it is true, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the prohibition of these imports?

IMPORT DUTIES (INDUSTRIAL RESEAECH).

Mr. MANDER: 45.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent the Import Duties Advisory Committee insists on an industry making adequate provision for research before recommending the imposition of the duty?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I understand that it is the practice of the Import Duties Advisory Committee to inquire as to the provision made for research, and the progress achieved, by industries which ask for a new or increased duty; and they naturally take account of these considerations in deciding whether to make a recommendation.

Mr. MANDER: Is it not possible to get more precise information as to the situation in each individual industry?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. Member is interested in any particular industry, and will address a question to me, I will try to get him the information.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: Is it not a fact that some industries find it impossible to command the necessary resources for research work in order to obtain information on matters connected with the industry, and that so soon as adequate protection is granted more research is able to be undertaken?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH SHIPPING (LOSSES AT SEA).

Mr. LOGAN: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that in connection with the loss of the steamship "Blairgowrie" with all hands there is evidence that the ship was not seaworthy, and that although it was over 3,000 tons gross it carried only two able-bodied seamen; and whether he proposes to institute a thorough inquiry into the loss of this vessel?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: May I first take this opportunity of expressing my deep sympathy, in which I am sure that the House will join, with the relatives of those lost in this disaster. Preliminary inquiries are being made by my Department, and whether a formal investigation is to be held will be decided in the light of those inquiries. The question of the seaworthiness of the ship will, of course, be examined, but I may say at once that her deck complement was one man in excess of the minimum requirements.

Mr. LOGAN: Is it not possible, in view of the great number of ships that have disappeared with a total loss of lives, for a searching inquiry to be made?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have no doubt that the formal investigation to which I have referred will throw what light can be thrown on these disasters.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether in this inquiry he will invite representatives from the union of seamen and firemen to be present also, so that they can have a watching brief in the case of the men who were on these vessels?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: In the case of a formal investigation of this kind, anyone who can throw any light on the circumstances will be present.

Dr. ADDISON: Will any inquiry into seaworthiness be made by the committee before subsidy grants are made to tramp ships?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is taken for granted that all vessels which come under the Merchant Shipping Acts and which are on our register are subject to examination, and of course only those are open to receive the subsidy.

Dr. ADDISON: When is such examination made?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is made from time to time and continuously.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the deep uneasiness in the public mind, particularly in the Liverpool district, on this matter, and, apart from the formal inquiry, does the light hon. Gentleman not think that a thorough public inquiry ought to be held in order to clear the public mind on the matter?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: What is called a formal investigation is a full inquiry. All the circumstances of the case will then be inquired into.

Mr. GREENWOOD: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the recent loss of life and vessels at sea in circumstances where it can be shown that the vessel was either unseaworthy or undermanned, or both; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent further avoidable loss of life by ensuring that vessels are seaworthy and efficiently manned before going to sea?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, in the cases of recent losses in which inquiries have been completed there was no evidence that the vessels were unseaworthy or undermanned. As regards the cases of the "Blairgowrie" and the "Usworth," in which inquiries are still proceeding, the question of seaworthiness will, of course, be examined, but there is no doubt that the vessels were adequately manned. I may add that a formal investigation will be held into the loss of the "Usworth."

Mr. GREENWOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that in the case of the "Blairgowrie" two able-bodied seamen, that is one in excess of regulations, are sufficient manning?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir. If I were to accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman I should give a wrong impression to the House. The deck hands did not consist only of two able-bodied seamen.

Mr. GREENWOOD: That is perfectly true. The deck hands consisted of four other people of 21 years of age or under.
Has the right hon. Gentleman received copies of correspondence which passed between the captain of the "La Crescenta," lost with all hands recently, and his wife and brother, and, in view of the circumstances, does he consider the boat to have been seaworthy?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not expressing any opinion as to whether a boat is seaworthy or not. We must abide by the judgment of the formal investigation. When that decision is given due publicity will be given to it.

Mr. GREENWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the second part of my question.

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot debate the matter now.

Mr. GREENWOOD: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I beg to give notice that at the end of questions I shall ask permission to move the Adjournment of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

RECRUITING (STANDARD).

Viscountess ASTOR: 8.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the number of men who offered themselves as recruits for the Regular Array during the present year but were rejected?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Douglas Hacking): The latest figures available are those for the first quarter of the recruiting year beginning on 1st October, 1934. Out of a total of 10,766 men who were served with notice papers during this period, 4,822 men were rejected.

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the report of the Chief Medical Officer of Health in regard to school children, in which he says that many of the diseases with which children end their elementary school careers would be entirely eliminated if we had a proper system of open-air nursery schools?

Mr. HACKING: I think that question had better be addressed to another Department.

Viscountess ASTOR: Is not the health of the recruits a matter of vital interest to the whole nation?

Mr. HACKING: It is a matter of vital importance, but I would point out to the Noble Lady that children are, in the first place, looked after by the Ministry of Health?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the number of rejects increasing or decreasing; and is the standard higher or lower, or does it remain constant?

Mr. HACKING: The standard which we require is, as everyone knows, a very high one. It is as high as, or higher, than that which would be demanded by any insurance company for a first-class life. The answer to the other part of the question is that the standard is certainly improving and the number of rejects is going down. Whereas in 1931 they were 60 per cent., in 1933 they had fallen to 50 per cent., and the figure is now only 45 per cent.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the men who are now offering themselves for service, and of the fact that women to-day are demanding a women's police force, would it not be possible to admit them to the Army also, seeing that they now have the vote?

OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS.

Brigadier-General NATION: 9.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether it is proposed to take any steps to restore the strength of the officers training corps, junior division, which has declined by over 4,000 in the last four years?

Mr. HACKING: No, Sir. It is true that there has been a large decrease in the total strength of these corps since 1930, but in spite of that fact there has been practically no decrease at all in the numbers of cadets who have proceeded to commissions in the Territorial Army and the Supplementary Reserve. The precise figures for commissions were 512 in the year ending 30th September, 1930, and 506 in the year ending 30th September, 1934.

Brigadier-General NATION: Do the War Office contemplate disbanding any further units?

Mr. HACKING: No, Sir, as my hon. and gallant Friend knows, certain units have been disbanded and certain replacements have been made, but it is not the
intention of the War Office, for the present at any rate, to alter the existing position.

ROYAL MILITARY ACADEMY, WOOLWICH (ADDRESS).

Duchess of ATHOLL: 10.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that the President of the Board of Education has recently addressed the cadets of the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich on the subject of the proposed Indian constitutional reforms; and whether he will give a similar opportunity to a critic of these proposals?

Mr. HACKING: I should be very sorry to take any step which imported any political flavour into the addresses given to the cadets of the Royal Military Academy. The arrangement of these addresses is a matter within the discretion of the commandant.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Is it not the case that a political flavour has already been introduced by an address being given by a member of the Government on a Bill which has not yet become law?

Mr. HACKING: The Noble Lady is misinformed. I am told by the commandant that there was no political flavour at all in the address.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: Is it not monstrous that a protagonist of this Bill should be invited to give an address in the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich at all?

RIFLE CLUBS.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 11.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, having in view the deficiency in the number of officers and men in the Territorial Force, he will consider the organisation under military supervision of rifle clubs in Great Britain upon the lines of rifle clubs in Australia, with a view to the development of reserves available in case of emergency?

Mr. HACKING: Certain proposals to meet the deficiency on the Territorial Army are now under consideration, and I will bear the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend in mind, although I doubt whether such a scheme is best suited to our particular needs.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

EDUCATION (LEAVING CERTIFICATE EXAMINATION).

Mrs. SHAW: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has been able to arrange for the earlier issue of the results of the leaving certificate examination?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): I am glad to be able to answer in the affirmative. In previous years the results have been issued in instalments starting in the middle of June and concluding by the end of July. This year arrangements have been made which should make it possible to issue all the results by the middle of June, that is, six weeks sooner than the conclusion of the issue in previous years.

Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOOD: May we take it that this will not prevent the reports from the teachers from being given fully, in deciding the results of these examinations?

Sir G. COLLINS: I am very glad to give that assurance. In no way whatever has the standard of this certificate been lowered.

SPECIAL AREAS (SCHEMES).

Mrs. SHAW: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the £2,000,000 allocated for expenditure in the special areas has been sanctioned for Scotland?

Sir G. COLLINS: Schemes involving an estimated expenditure of approximately £106,000 by the Commission for the Special Areas in Scotland have already been approved, subject in some instances to adjustment of details, and other schemes which would entail a large increase on this expenditure are under active consideration.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: How many men has the Commissioner put into employment up to date?

Sir G. COLLINS: I am afraid I could not answer that question without notice.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to tell the House whether the Commissioner has been able to put any man into employment in Scotland?

Sir G. COLLINS: I shall be very glad to answer that question if the hon. Member will put it down. With such information as I have, I am unable to answer it at the moment.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction widely felt in Scotland with the working of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929; whether he has considered the report on the subject by the small burghs committee of the Convention of Royal Burghs; and whether he proposes to appoint a committee to inquire into the administration of the Act, and to make recommendations for its amendment?

Sir G. COLLINS: I am not satisfied that there is such a desire throughout Scotland for a general inquiry of this kind as would justify the setting up of a committee at this time. The views recently expressed by the small burghs committee of the Convention of Royal Burghs are presently under consideration and reports have been called for from the Departments on the matters in question. As regards the financial questions involved, early steps will be taken, as required by the Act of 1929, to investigate its financial working in consultation with local authorities before the expiry of the second fixed grant period on 15th May, 1937.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister when head of the previous Government said that there should be an inquiry into the working of this Act as soon as sufficient time had elapsed to enable experience of it to be gained; and has not the time now arrived for such an inquiry, seeing that the small burghs themselves want it?

Sir G. COLLINS: Public opinion on this matter has moved considerably within the last two years. I have in view all the circumstances of the case and the opinions presently held in Scotland, and I think the answer that I have given represents the view of the Government on the matter.

POLICE PENSION FUNDS.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is
aware that police pension funds were abolished under the Police Pensions Act, 1921; whether any list has ever been prepared showing the assets of the police pension funds so abolished; and whether, as the assets of the Glasgow police pension fund, so abolished, now amount to £363,337, he will give directions as to the best utilisation of these assets, either towards meeting present police pensions payable in Glasgow, or otherwise in meeting the heavy expenditure in Glasgow on account of unemployed and other social schemes?

Sir G. COLLINS: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; and the reply to the second part is in the negative. As regards the last part of the question the assets referred to were transferred, under the Police Pensions Act, 1921, to the Glasgow police fund and they continue, in accordance with that Act, to be held by the police authority as investments of the police fund. The income derived from these investments is paid into the police fund, from which the expenses of the Glasgow Police Force, including pensions to former members of the force, are paid. I have no power to allocate any of this money for social schemes.

BARLINNIE PRISON, GLASGOW (DLSTUEBANCES).

Mr. LEONARD: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the inquiry into the disturbances at Barlinnie Prison, Glasgow, is being conducted independently by Sir George Rankin or in conjunction with the Scottish Prison Department?

Sir G. COLLINS: I appointed Sir George Rankin to hold an independent inquiry and he alone will be responsible for the report. Arrangements were, however, made for him to receive such assistance as he might desire from the head of the Prisons Department for Scotland and the assistant secretary at the Scottish Office in charge of prisons administration.

MENTAL TREATMENT.

Mr. LEONARD: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that mental defectives, inmates of the State institution for mental defectives, are associated in recreation and exercise with the inmates of the
criminal lunatic department; and whether he can state the acreage of ground allotted for exercise and recreational purposes?

Sir G. COLLINS: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the last part of the question the area of ground available for exercise and recreation is just over an acre in extent.

Mr. LEONARD: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider it advisable to separate the exercise periods for these two types of people?

Sir G. COLLINS: The matter is presently under my consideration, and I hope to make an announcement at an early date.

SMALLHOLDERS, LONGFORGAN (HOUSING).

Lord SCONE: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that a number of the houses occupied by smallholders at Longforgan, Perthshire, are no longer weatherproof, some being dilapidated to the point of being scarcely habitable; and whether he will cause an investigation to be made?

Sir G. COLLINS: The question of the repair or replacement of the houses referred to has been under consideration for some time and I hope that it will be possible to reach a decision at an early date. My Noble Friend is aware that the matter is not free from difficulty as the tenants concerned are landholders, and, as such, are responsible for the maintenance of their houses.

Lord SCONE: May I request the right hon. Gentleman to expedite his researches so that these unfortunate people may have houses in which to live as soon as possible?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House how many landlords' houses in Scotland are dilapidated?

MILK MARKETING BOARD (POINDINGS).

Lord SCONE: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of cases, in Scotland and Perthshire, respectively, in -which cows, other live stock, agricultural implements, or furniture have been poinded at the instance of the Scottish Milk Marketing Board, together with the total number of cows poinded, and the average value placed upon each cow?

Sir G. COLLINS: I am informed that the total number of cases in which poindings have been carried out is 64, including 22 in the county of Perth. The total number of cows poinded is 320, including 67 in the county of Perth. The average value placed upon the cows by the sheriff's officers is £10 2s. 3d. and the average for the county of Perth is £10 7s. 8d. I may add that in a great many of the cases where poindings have been executed the producers concerned have now come to an arrangement for payment of their debts by reasonable instalments, and it is hoped that similar arrangements will be made in the other cases. In only one case so far has a sale of poinded effects been instructed.

Lord SCONE: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether the Milk Marketing Board is willing to accept a reasonable system of instalment payments for the overdue sums?

Sir G. COLLINS: I will communicate the request of my Noble Friend to the Marketing Board, but I am sure that in all things they are willing to consider the interests of the people concerned.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the methods of the Milk Marketing Board appear to be much less honest than were those of Rob Roy in the 17th century?

Lord SCONE: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that in many recent cases when cows have been poinded at the instance of the Scottish Milk Marketing Board, such cows have been valued at only a fraction of their real worth; and if he will request the board to repay to the owners any excess over the value put on them at poinding, which may be obtained when the cows are subsequently sold?

Sir G. COLLINS: I cannot express an opinion on the point raised in the first part of the question, but I have received an assurance from the board that in the event of their obtaining from the sale of poinded cows an amount in excess of the value put upon them on poinding, the surplus after allowing for expenses will be repaid to the producers concerned.

BRACKEN.

Duchess of ATHOLL: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to reduce bracken?

Sir G. COLLINS: The committee appointed last year to test the possibility of controlling the spread of bracken by improved methods of cutting and spraying have not yet been able to arrive at a definite opinion on the merits of the various methods employed, and they propose to continue experiments in the current year.

LAND SETTLEMENT (GIFT).

Miss HORSBRUGH: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is in a position to make any statement regarding recent developments relating to the provision of small holdings and plots for cultivation by unemployed persons in the neighbourhood of Dundee?

Sir G. COLLINS: It gives mo great pleasure to announce that the Department of Agriculture for Scotland have received from Mr. James Mathew, a well-known citizen of Dundee, the offer, as a free gift, of the farm of Dryburgh extending to 188 acres near Dundee for the purpose of placing unemployed men from Dundee and district on the land. He has also gifted £7,000 for purposes connected with the scheme. In addition he proposes to create a trust fund estimated at between £25,000 and £30,000 for the furtherance of land settlement projects making a total provision by the donor of over £50,000. I am sure that the House will wish me to express cordial thanks to Mr. Mathew, on behalf of the Government, for his handsome and generous gift.

Miss HORSBRUGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman give sufficient publicity to this gift so that this trust may be added to by other citizens of Dundee or elsewhere who may also want to help in this cause?

Sir G. COLLINS: I am sure that that expression of opinion and the spirit of the House this afternoon will be conveyed to the minds of the public in the ordinary way.

Dr. ADDISON: May I ask whether the Government will exercise their own powers in this matter instead of being dependent upon the charity of public-spirited individuals?

Sir G. COLLINS: The right hon. Gentleman appears to be unaware of the intention of the Government in driving forward land settlement in Scotland.

Dr. ADDISON: Have the Government exercised their powers in any measure whatever under the 1931 Act?

Mr. SPEAKER: That has nothing to do with this question at all.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

AGRICULTURAL WORKERS, SCOTLAND.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he proposes to take steps to ascertain at first hand the wishes of the farm servants of Scotland in regard to the adoption of the proposed scheme for bringing agricultural workers within a scheme of unemployment insurance?

Sir G. COLLINS: I presume that the right hon. and gallant Baronet has in mind the possibility of a plebiscite. I doubt whether anything in the nature of a plebiscite would be practicable; but since the publication of the report of the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee I have been making inquiries with a view to ascertaining the views of Scottish farm servants and I also understand that their views were represented before the committee.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is quite wrong in supposing that I mean a plebiscite; and is it not possible to get effective consultation with these farm servants; and when are his inquiries likely to be completed so that action may follow?

Sir G. COLLINS: I have been making inquiries from those who are in a position to inform me on the subject. As to the latter part of the question, I am afraid I cannot add anything to what the Government have already said on this method.

Sir IAN MACPHERSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of receiving a deputation from the farm servants?

Sir G. COLLINS: I shall be very glad at any time to receive a deputation on the subject,

Mr. BUCHANAN: Before doing anything, will the right hon. Gentleman seriously consider avoiding any differentiation in this matter between farm servants in Scotland and those in England?

Lord SCONE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great body of farm servants in Scotland who are definitely opposed to any such scheme?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a further question—

Mr. SPEAKER: We have had several questions already on the subject.

TRAINING CENTRES.

Mr. MAINWARING: 31 and 32.
asked the Minister of Labour (1) what was the total initial cost of acquiring, including the equipment, the premises now utilised as training, instructional, or conditioning centres under his Department, together with the average annual cost of equipment and maintenance;
(2) what is the total annual cost, on account of salaries and wages, of persons in charge of training centres, &c., and of those engaged for instructional purposes?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Oliver Stanley): The total initial cost of acquiring and equipping the premises now utilised as training, instructional, &c., centres, was about £400,000. Details of the estimated cost of salaries and wages, and of equipment and maintenance for 1934 and 1935 are given in the Estimates for the Ministry of Labour for 1935 (page 25 of H.C. 50). The provision for equipment is largely dependent upon the number of new centres to be opened during the year.

Mr. MAINWARING: 33.
asked the Minister of Labour what is the total estimated cost of maintenance, on all accounts, per trainee per week at each of the instructional and conditioning centres under the Ministry?

Mr. STANLEY: I am having figures extracted and will circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. LECKIE: 40.
asked the Minister of Health what action he proposes to take on behalf of the 106,000 unemployed persons whose right to old age pensions at 65 will be invalidated if the effective Clause in the Act of 1932 is allowed to expire this year?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): My right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to make any statement on this matter.

Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the anxiety felt in every quarter of the House, cannot the hon. Gentleman give us a definite date, or an approximate date, when he will be able to make a statement, instead of always putting us off?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: It is impossible to give a date, but the matter is very important, and we shall deal with it at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. LAWSON: Are not the facts in this case worse than was originally expected, and does not that make this an urgent matter?

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: Is it not a fact that all these things are being very carefully considered at the present time?

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it not many months since the hon. Gentleman's chief stated in the House that the matter was under active consideration; is the hon. Gentleman aware of the great anxiety among poor people in regard to this matter and that legislation may be necessary and will he not, therefore, give some kind of idea when the report will be considered and a decision made?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I have told the House in my reply that this must depend upon the final report of the Government Actuary, and I do not control the time of the report.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Is not the hon. Gentleman fully aware that all this has arisen because of the passing of the amending Act of 1934?

Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, may I give notice that I shall, if possible, raise this question with the Under-Secretary on the Adjournment to-morrow night?

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

CANNOCK CHASE (RE-ORGANISATION).

Mrs. WARD: 24.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is now able to give any information about the proposed re-organisation of the coal mines in the Cannock Chase coalfield?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): The preparation of a scheme involving 11 companies is necessarily a very difficult and detailed matter, and although I understand considerable progress has now been made, I am unable to add anything to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend on 13th November last.

Mrs. WARD: Can the hon. Gentleman state what this re-organisation will cost and who will bear the cost?

Mr. BROWN: I cannot say at this stage.

Mr. MANDER: Is any difficulty being found in obtaining the necessary information from the mineowners?

Mr. BROWN: I should want notice of that question if the hon. Member requires a detailed answer.

WAGES.

Mr. T. SMITH: 25.
asked the Secretary for Mines the total amount paid in wages in the mining industry for each of the last six years, the average earnings per annum per person employed, and the separate figures for South and West Yorkshire, respectively?

Mr. E. BROWN: As the reply involves a statistical statement, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. WEST: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, although wages have declined in the last six years and output has largely increased, the price of coal has not altered?

Mr. BROWN: I am not aware of anything of the Kind. The total wages were higher in 1934, at £88,000,000, than in any year since 1931; and the average earnings, at £116 per annum, are higher than any year since 1929.

Mr. SMITH: Can the hon. Gentleman say what the figure was in 1930?

Mr. BROWN: It was £105 million. In 1931 it was £93 million; in 1932, £87 million; in 1933, £84 million; and in 1934, £88 million.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: Will the hon. Gentleman inform the House of the figure by which the aggregate earnings have declined in the same period?

Mr. BROWN: If the hon. Gentleman win put a question down, I will give him a detailed answer.

Mr. MAINWARING: With reference to one of the hon. Gentleman's earlier replies, in which he said the average earnings in 1934 were higher than those of 1929, is that not contradicted by the fact that some of the men—

HON. MEMBERS: Speech.

Mr. SPEAKER: The question only asks for some figures.

Following is the statement:


Year.
Estimated Total Wages Bill (excluding the value of allowances in kind).
Average Earnings per annum per person employed (excluding the value of allowances in kind).


Great Britain.



Million £
£


1929
110
118


1930
105
114


1931
93
112


1932
87
109


1933
84
110


1934
88
116


(provisional)




Yorkshire.*



Thousand £
£


1929
20,068
119


1930
19,165
115


1931
17,374
109


1932
16,042
107


1933
14,984
109


1934
15,734
114


(provisional)




* Separate figures for South and West Yorkshire are not available.

OVER-WINDING (INQUIRY).

Mr. T. SMITH: 26.
asked the Secretary for Mines when the departmental committee appointed to inquire into precautions against over-winding is likely to issue its report?

Mr. E. BROWN: The committee has presented me with a unanimous report which is now in the Press, and which will be published as soon as possible—I hope before the end of the month.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA (COMPENSATION, RULER OF BHOR).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether with regard to the partial handing-over by
the Government of Bombay of certain villages to the Bhor Durbar the inhabitants have made any protest; and whether they will lose their status or rights as British-Indian subjects?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): I understand that the right hon. and gallant Member is referring to the circumstances a few years ago in which the ruler of Bhor was given landlord's rights, but not sovereignty or jurisdiction, over certain villages in British India in compensation for the portion of his territory which was taken over by the Government for the construction of the Lloyd Dam at Bhatgar. The status and rights of the inhabitants as British-Indian subjects were in no way affected, and I am not aware that they made any protest.

Oral Answers to Questions — WOMEN MAGISTRATES.

Viscountess ASTOR: 28.
asked the Attorney-General whether he can give an assurance that the opposition of a Lord-Lieutenant would not be a bar to the appointment of women magistrates in any area?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): The Lord Chancellor has never known a case where a Lord-Lieutenant has opposed an appointment solely on the ground that the person proposed was a woman. If such a case occurred, my Noble Friend would regard such opposition as an insufficient reason for withholding the appointment.

Viscountess ASTOR: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that in counties where there are backward-looking Lords-Lieutenant there are few women magistrates, whereas in counties like Devonshire, where there is a forward-looking Lord-Lieutenant, there are many women magistrates?

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL DISEASES (COTTON DUST).

Sir JOHN HASLAM: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any decision has yet been arrived at by his Department as regards scheduling as an industrial disease under the Workmen's Compensation Act illnesses caused by excessive dust in cotton mills?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave last Thursday to a question by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies).

Sir J. HASLAM: In thanking the right hon. Gentleman for the energetic action of Ms Parliamentary Secretary in visiting Lancashire and investigating this matter, may I ask whether we may have some decision in the immediate future, as this is a very pressing problem?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I hope we may be able to have a fairly early decision, but I cannot give any date.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGG PRICES.

Mr. T. COOK: 30.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has any statement to make in regard to the recent fall in the price of English eggs?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): There is usually at this season a fall in egg prices, and the fall since the beginning of this year corresponds closely to the fall in the same period of 1934. I am, however, keeping the position under close observation.

Mr. WEST: Will the Minister consider the desirability of publishing a list of the British importers of these foreign eggs?

Mr. BUCHANAN: Does the reference in the Minister's answer to keeping the position under observation mean that he will interfere with the supply of cheap fresh eggs for the poorer people of this country?

Mr. ELLIOT: I have no hesitation in doing my—

Mr. SPEAKER: Order. That supplementary question had nothing to do with the question on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL YEOMANRY (SOUTH AFRICAN WAR FUNDS).

Mr. R. J. RUSSELL: 34.
asked the hon. Member for Bosworth (Sir W. Edge), as representing the Charity Commissioners, what has been done with the funds raised during the South African War for the assistance of members of
the Imperial Yeomanry; and if he is aware that some of those who served in that war are to-day in need of help?

Mr. BLINDELL (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. The only fund raised specifically for the Imperial Yeomanry of which the Charity Commissioners have knowledge is that known as the Imperial Yeomanry Benevolent Fund, administered under the provisions of a Declaration of Trust dated the 28th July, 1903, as varied by a Scheme of the Court dated the 30th July, 1930. There is also a South African Fund for soldiers disabled in the Boer War administered by Lloyds Patriotic Fund. Accounts of the income and expenditure of both these funds are rendered to the Commissioners in accordance with the Charitable Trusts Acts and are open to inspection at the Commissioners' office. The Commissioners do not themselves administer charities and have no official information beyond that given in the accounts as to how far men who served in the South African War are still in need of assistance.

Brigadier-General NATION: Can the hon. Member say how many men who served in the Imperial Yeomanry in the South African War are alive to-day, or where that information can be obtained?

Mr. BLINDELL: I think the answer definitely states that the Charity Commissioners have no knowledge of that.

Mr. MANDER: May I ask where the hon. Member for Bosworth (Sir W. Edge) is, and why it is not possible for him to be here to answer questions?

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

GATEHOUSE-OF-FLEET, KIRKCUDBRIGHT- SHIRE.

Mr. McKIE: 35.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the dissatisfaction among residents in the area, he will reconsider his decision regarding the postal direction of Gatehouse-of-Fleet, Kirkcudbrightshire?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Ernest Bennett): As my right hon. Friend stated in his answer to my hon. Friend's question of the 25th of February, the change was made as part of a general policy, and he regrets there-
fore that he cannot alter the decision, which was only arrived at after careful consideration.

Mr. McKIE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that considerable anxiety on this point is felt among the residents in this highly attractive place, which has many visitors in the summer?

Sir E. BENNETT: All the facts of the case have been taken into consideration.

GLENWHILLY, WIGTOWNSHIRE.

Mr. McKIE: 36.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he can make any statement regarding the working of the postal service to Glenwhilly, Wigtownshire, since the change in the direction two years ago?

Sir E. BENNETT: The change, which greatly improved the postal service, has been fully justified; but if my hon. Friend has any complaint, I shall be glad to make inquiry.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL PARKS (COMMITTEE).

Mr. MANDER: 38.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can state the present position with regard to the carrying into effect of the recommendations of the Committee on National Parks; and whether the Advisory Committee on Town Planning recently appointed have as yet given consideration to the matter or made recommendations?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The report of the National Parks Committee has received consideration, but while my right hon. Friend is in sympathy with the objects which the committee have in view, he cannot at the present time hold out any prospect of putting their recommendations into operation. Local authorities, by means particularly of planning schemes under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, are making steady progress in the reservation of land for both public and private open spaces and in the control of premature building operations and will continue to receive all the help and encouragement in these matters which my right hon. Friend is able to give them. My right hon. Friend has not received any recommendations in the matter from the advisory committee on town planning.

Mr. MANDER: Is it not possible to find the small sum of £10,000 a year for
this purpose in view of the fact that £10,000,000 a year can be found for armaments?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: In connection with this proposed national park is there any suggestion that there should be a charge of 2d. a seat for sitting down in it?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 39.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the large numbers of members of approved societies who are now out of health insurance owing to prolonged unemployment, and so must apply to the Poor Law medical officers instead of the panel doctors; what is being done to prevent these medical officers being unable, through overwork, to deal efficiently with their large numbers of new patients; and whether he will take steps forthwith to enable all such persons to regain medical benefit with the panel doctors?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: A number of persons have ceased to be entitled to benefits under the scheme of national health insurance by reason of prolonged unemployment and a proportion of these are having recourse to the public assistance authorities when in need of medical attendance. As regards the second part of the question, it is for the public assistance authority to see that their medical service is adequate for the needs of the area, and my right hon. Friend has every reason to believe that the authorities generally are alive to their responsibilities. As regards the last part, my right hon. Friend has already stated that the whole position will be considered in the light of the first report of the Government Actuary on the financial operation of the Contributory Pensions Acts.

Mr. T. SMITH: Can the hon. Gentleman say when we are likely to have this report?

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Can the hon. Gentleman say that his Department really cannot distinguish between the amount a man loses in connection with medical benefit under National Health Insurance and the amount he loses in respect of contributory pension under the other scheme, and may not the report he is expecting have nothing to do with the amount lost in respect of medical benefit?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: They are linked together, and the whole matter is receiving active consideration.

Sir W. BRASS: Is it not possible for those who need medical benefit to see panel doctors?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Minister of Health to see to it that those individuals who have been cut off as a result of long unemployment are allowed to go to panel doctors instead of to Poor Law doctors, because they feel that it is degrading and they do not want to be degraded any further?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: That is one of the chief points we have under consideration.

Mr. LOGAN: Do I take it that it is the intention of the Minister to re-establish the Prolongation Act, in order to give an opportunity for panel cases to be dealt with?

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH DOWNS (MOTOR RACING TRACK, PORTSLADE).

Mr. MANDER: 42.
asked the Minister of Health the present position with regard to the erection of a motor racing-track at Portslade; and what steps are being taken for the protection of the remainder of the South Downs?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend understands that permission to construct the proposed motor-race course has been given by the Portslade-by-Sea Urban District Council. As regards the second part of the question, schemes are in preparation, and development is subject to control by the local authorities, over the whole of the South Downs.

Mr. JOHN WILMOT: Has not the Minister power to take action to protect the amenities of the Downs?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: There are powers conferred by town planning legislation, but unfortunately the joint committee are not functioning. We are using all our influence to get that committee to function again.

Oral Answers to Questions — STREET NOISES AND VIBRATION (PNEUMATIC DRILLS).

Mr. TINKER: 43.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been
called to the noise and vibration caused by the use of the pneumatic drill in the breaking up of roadways; and can he say, what steps his Department is taking to find out what effect it has on the health of those who have to work it and those who reside in the vicinity?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, the general question of the effects of noise and vibration is under investigation by the Industrial Health Research Board, and my right hon. Friend has not considered it desirable that separate inquiries should be instituted by his department.

Mr. TINKER: Is the point mentioned in this question one that will come before the commitee of inquiry?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Oh yes, certainly.

Captain STRICKLAND: Does the Minister consider that this matter is of less importance than the sounding of motor horns to avoid accidents?

Oral Answers to Questions — CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.

Mr. GROVES: 44.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the serial numbers connected with applications for contributory pensions have arrived at over seven figures and that this figuring causes confusion to applicants; and whether he will consider a simpler system of identification?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on the 19th July, 1934, to a similar question by him.

Mr. GROVES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that since he gave me that other reply his department have increased the numbers on the circulars and have added at the top a further list of four numbers; that on the postcard it says "Please, in reply, quote the number nearest your address," and that this innovation is causing anxiety among the old people; and is it not better for old people to have simple numbers to reply to?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I will look into the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — STAMP DUTY.

Sir FRANK SANDERSON: 46.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the 1 per cent. stamp duty on deeds of transfer for stocks and shares was imposed as a wartime measure, that the conditions prevailing at that time no longer obtain, and that this high stamp duty is hampering business, he will consider reverting to the pre-war stamp duty of one-half per cent.?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend will not expect me to anticipate my Budget statement.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: "Will the right hon. Gentleman in framing his Budget proposals, take into account the price of whisky and the ordinary commercial principle, which is if you charge too much you do much less business and then you lose?

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE (ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 47.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the two Jewish women who have been hunger striking in Bethlehem Gaol for a week without the news being allowed to transpire are now at liberty; how long they had been gaoled at Bethlehem before they struck, and were they convicted or awaiting sentence; and will he find out whether the officer in charge of the prison was English, Arab, or Jew?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I have no information on the subject, but I will write to the High Commissioner for a report.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: When the right hon. Gentleman is writing to the High Commissioner could he indicate to him that the continuing imprisonment of innocent people is raising considerable opposition in this country?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have no reason to suppose that the courts in Palestine are imprisoning innocent people.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that people are guilty who go to Palestine because there is nowhere else to go?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: If they are persons who, knowing quite well the immigration law, deliberately enter Palestine by forged and improper means, they are certainly guilty.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE ESTIMATES (DEBATE).

Wing-Commander JAMES: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the impossibility of adequately discussing the Estimates of three defence Services under the present system of separate votes, and in view of the manner in which the day that the Government had set apart yesterday for a general debate upon the Estimates became diverted into other channels, he will consider taking the Army and Air Votes upon the same day, and allotting the day thus saved for a debate upon the defence Services as a whole?

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): I am afraid my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion is not practicable. An opportunity was given yesterday for a debate upon defence as a whole, and, as my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, there will be other occasions during the session when the subject of defence can be debated.

Wing-Commander JAMES: In view of the representations that have been made from all parts of the House that this system should be changed, will the Government give this matter their earnest consideration before another year?

Sir EDWARD GRIGG: Will the right hon. Gentleman make some representations to the Committee which is dealing with the allotment of time for the Government of India Bill, in order to find out if it will be possible to take one of the Committee days of that Bill in order to deal with this important question of Imperial defence?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH SHIPPING (LOSSES AT SEA).

At end of Questions—

Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely:
the loss with all hands of the steamships 'La Crescenta' and 'Blairgowrie' through unseaworthiness, or under-manning, or both.

Mr. SPEAKER: As I understand, this question is sub judice at the present moment, and an inquiry, if not already started, is about to be held. It is not therefore a matter that can be raised under Standing Order No. 8.

Mr. GREENWOOD: So far as I understand, no inquiry has been promised with regard to the "La Crescenta" at all.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No question has been put to me on the Paper with regard to the "La Crescenta." If such a question had been put, the answer would have been that an inquiry would certainly be instituted, and, if necessary, as a result of that inquiry, we might be called upon to make a formal investigation.

Mr. GREENWOOD: This is a matter of urgent and definite public importance. We have had losses of ships during the past winter. This inquiry may dawdle on, and ships may leave port to-day and go down with all hands. We have had no undertaking from the right hon. Gentleman either that he is prepared to establish an efficient standard of manning or that he is prepared to institute a system of supervision to prevent unseaworthy ships from going to sea.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that, notwithstanding all those points, the subject would not be one which could be raised under Standing Order No. 8 and on which I could allow the Adjournment to be moved.

Dr. ADDISON: In view of the fact that these two ships have been sunk in these circumstances, and in view of the fact that this House has voted £2,000,000 as a subsidy for these ships, is it not a matter of urgent importance that the House should be informed more fully as to the ships that are lost in these undesirable circumstances?

Mr. SPEAKER: It is no doubt a matter of great importance, but it is not a matter of such a nature that it would come under Standing Order No. 8.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.

Mr. GURNEY BRAITHWAITE: I ask leave of the House to make a personal statement. In the Debate in this House on Thursday last, on the subject of recent dealings in commodities in the City of London, during which there was a good deal of plain speaking, I used the following words:
Let us remember also that there is something else which is not in my view worthy. Suppose you know that someone or some group of persons has become heavily involved in pepper, that they are also bulls, or holders of large quantities of tin, and that in order to meet their pepper commitments they will have to realise upon that tin. Knowing these facts you promptly sell short on tin, and having sold short you flood the market with propaganda, pointing out the likelihood of a fall in the price of tin; a propaganda upon which the House may have the guidance and assistance of the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. R. Strauss).
I ought to add that at that point I produced a document published by the firm of which the hon. Gentleman is a director, which document I believed to be directed to depressing the price of tin. At that moment the hon. Member rose. I gave way to him, and he said this:
I have been following the hon. Member during the last minute or two and I gather that he is making certain suggestions as regards my business of selling short on tin, and so on. I have not interrupted him because I did not know whether he was referring to me or not. May I assure him that the facts which he has put before the House are utterly untrue. They have no foundation whatever. If he desires to go on—I know that he does not wish to mislead the House—let me tell him that his facts have absolutely no foundation whatever."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March, 1935; col. 2192, Vol. 298.]
After certain other verbal exchanges, with which I will not weary the House, the hon. Member raised the matter again on a point of Order at a later stage of the Debate, when I said this:
The hon. Gentleman has made a categorical statement, and of course in this House we always accept personal statements of that character. If, after reading the OFFICIAL REPORT, the hon. Member considers that I have said anything to his personal detriment or against his interest, or which accuses his firm of any improper conduct, I will take the first opportunity of publicly withdrawing it. I think, however, he will find, on reading my speech, that I have not done so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March, 1935; col. 2206, Vol. 298.]
I heard by letter yesterday from the hon. Member, and I think I ought to
point out to the House that the delay was due to his confusing me with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckrose (Major Braithwaite). I received yesterday from the hon. Member a letter in which he said that, having read the OFFICIAL REPORT, he still feels that my words contained an imputation of improper conduct. I am not clear that the ethics of the City would regard "bear" operations in tin, or propaganda with a view to depressing the price of a commodity, as improper; but in any case no charge against the firm of which my hon. Friend is a director of selling short was intended. He has assured me that the document which I produced was not issued from any such motive, and I am most anxious that the hon. Member should not labour under any sense of grievance or feel that I have made an unfair attack within the shelter of privilege. In these circumstances I have the greatest pleasure in carrying out the undertaking which I gave the House last Thursday by asking leave to withdraw the allegation of which the hon. Member for North Lambeth complains.

Mr. G. R. STRAUSS: I only desire to say that I naturally resented the statement of the hon. Member at the time, and I am indeed grateful for the complete withdrawal which he has indicated to the House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

3.29 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Lord President of the Council what the business is for Friday?

Mr. BALDWIN: In the event of the Committee stage being taken to-morrow night, we shall take the Third Reading of the Cattle Industry (Emergency Provisions) Bill as the first Order on Friday. The other business to be taken on that day will be the Report stage and Third Reading of the Post Office (Amendment) Bill, the Second Reading of the Superannuation Bill, of the Northern Ireland Land Purchase (Winding-up) Bill, and of the Regimental Charitable Funds Bill [Lords], and the Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution. If there is time, other Orders will be taken.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Lord President of the Council a question about the Motion for suspending the Eleven o'clock Rule to-day? Will he tell the House what business he proposes to take?

Mr. BALDWIN: We are suspending the Rule for the same reason that we suspended it the other day—because we are rather behindhand in the programme that we hoped to carry out. We hope that, by having a little easement of time at the end of the day, we may be able to make a little more progress, and, therefore, facilitate our summer holiday.

Mr. LANSBURY: We are all for good long holidays, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman as I asked him last week, whether this is going to be regular? If we are going to suspend the Rule for the Government of India Bill on two days a week, it does really rob Members of the privilege of raising questions on the Adjournment, and it is rather a breach of the understanding. We may have to accept the decision of the majority, but we should not voluntarily accept the position that the Government of India Bill, which we all agreed to discuss in a friendly way, should be taken after eleven o'clock at night, and I shall vote against the Motion, but I think we shall have to enter a rather more emphatic protest if the Government propose to do this more or less regularly. We think that the time allotted ought to have been sufficient within the ordinary Parliamentary day.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The Lord President of the Council talked about facilitating a long holiday. If we guarantee facilities for the Government of India Bill, will he guarantee to facilitate an early date for a General Election?

Mr. BALDWIN: I entirely agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but I would remind him that this is only the second occasion in the eight days of the Committee stage. I should have the strongest objection to its becoming a regular procedure, but I think the House must remember that we are working for the first time under an arrangement which I still hope and believe will work out satisfactorily before long, and there must be a little elasticity, a little give and take, in the first two or three weeks
before it gets going. We are—not, I think, owing to any particular fault of any particular party—some little way behind the point where we hoped to be, and we hope to rectify that to some extent by what we are doing to-night. I hope very much that before many days are passed we may find the arrangement working as smoothly as we all hoped it would when it was come to.

Mr. CHURCHILL: How far does the right hon. Gentleman hope to get tonight?

Mr. BALDWIN: I do not think I can give an answer to that question. Probably, if the question were put to him, my right hon. Friend in charge of the Debate might be able to say something about it. I would rather not commit myself, as I am not sufficiently familiar with the details of the Bill.

Mr. MAXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember, when the Government ask the House to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule, that practically all private Members' time has been taken away, and all private Members' opportunities have been taken away, so that the only way that remains to private Members who have important matters to raise is the

Adjournment time from 11 till 11.30. That was taken away from us last night by three Divisions which the Government forced upon the House—[Laughter]—I mean by bringing forward a proposal which was absolutely unnecessary from the point of view of the Opposition; and to-night also that opportunity is to be taken away. I am not complaining at this juncture. I entered into the agreement under which it was understood that occasionally the Eleven o'Clock Rule might have to be suspended. But I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind the fact that the Adjournment time is practically the only private Members' time that is left, and not to take it away without good cause.

Mr. BALDWIN: I entirely agree; what the hon. Member has said is true; but I am inclined to think that there have been a large number of evenings on which subjects could have been raised and no advantage has been taken of them.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Baldwin.]

The House divided: Ayes, 264; Noes, 42.

Division No. 90.]
AYES.
[3.52 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Davison, Sir William Henry


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Browne, Captain A. C.
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Buchan, John
Donner, P. W.


Albery, Irving James
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Doran, Edward


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Burnett, John George
Duckworth, George A. V.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Butler, Richard Austen
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Duggan, Hubert John


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)


Assheton, Ralph
Carver, Major William H.
Dunglass, Lord


Atholl, Duchess of
Castiereagh, Viscount
Eady, George H.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Waiter


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir. A,(Birm., W)
Elmley, Viscount


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Christie, James Archibald
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Everard, W. Lindsay


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Clarke, Frank
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Fox, Sir Gifford


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Colfox, Major William Philip
Fremantle, Sir Francis


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Fuller, Captain A. G.


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace


Bilndell, James
Cook, Thomas A.
Ganzoni, Sir John


Borodale, Viscount
Cooke, Douglas
Gillett, Sir George Masterman


Bossom, A. C.
Cooper, A. Duff
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Boulton, W. W.
Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Gledhill, Gilbert


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Cranborne, Viscount
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Crooke, J. Smedley
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Brass, Captain Sir William
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Grigg, Sir Edward


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)
Grimston, R. V.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Cross, R. H.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Z'tl'nd)


Hanbury, Cecil
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Hartington, Marquess of
Mallalieu Edward Lancelot
Salmon, Sir Isldore


Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Sait, Edward W.


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Margesson, Capt, Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Savery, Samuel Servington


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Scone, Lord


Hepworth, Joseph
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffleid, Hallam)


Holdsworth, Herbert
Morgan, Robert H.
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)


Horsbrugh, Florence
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Smithers, Sir Waldron


Howard, Tom Forrest
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Somerset, Thomas


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Somerville, Sir Donald


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Munro, Patrick
Soper, Richard


Hurst. Sir Gerald B.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)


James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Nunn, William
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Stones, James


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Orr Ewing, I. L.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Palmer, Francis Noel
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Patrick, Colin M.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Kirkpatrick, William M.
Pearson, William G.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Knight, Holford
Petherick, M.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.(P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Knox, Sir Alfred
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Blist'n)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Lamb, Sir Joseph Oulnton
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Tree, Ronald


Leckie, J. A.
Radford, E. A.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Ward, Lt.-Col, Sir A. L. (Hull)


Levy, Thomas
Ramsbotham, Herwaid
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Lewis, Oswald
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Liddall, Walter S.
Rathbone, Eleanor
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Lindsay, Kenneth (Kllmarnock)
Rea, Walter Russell
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
White, Henry Graham


Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Held, James S. C. (Stirling)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Loder, Captain J, de Vere
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Rickards, George William
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Ross, Ronald D.
Womersley, Sir Walter


Mabane, William
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Rothschild, James A. de
Worthington, Dr. John V.


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward
Wragg, Herbert


McConnell, Sir Joseph
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)



McKie, John Hamilton
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir




George Penny.


NOES.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Grundy, Thomas W.
Maxton, James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Parkinson, John Allen


Banfield, John William
Jenkins, Sir William
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Batey, Joseph
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Smith. Tom (Normanton)


Buchanan, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)


Cleary, J. J.
Kirkwood, David
Thorne, William James


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar, George
Lawson, John James
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah


Davies. David L. (Pontypridd)
Leonard, William
West, F. B.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Dobbie, William
Lunn, William
Williams, Thomas (York., Don Valley)


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Wilmot, John


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
McEntee, Valentine L.



Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Mainwaring, William Henry
Mr. Paling and Mr. Groves.


Resolution agreed to.

STANDING ORDERS.

Resolution reported from the Select Committee:
That, in the case of the Sunderland Corporation, Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed
with their Bill, provided that the powers to construct so much of Tramway No. 2 as is situate outside the borough are struck out of the Bill:—That the Committee on the Bill do report how far such order has been complied with.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

Herring Industry Bill, with Amendments.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the abandonment of the tramways of the Norwich Electric Tramways Company; to extend the Company's powers of running public service vehicles; to change their name; and for other purposes." [Norwich Electric Tramways Bill [Lords.]

NORWICH ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS BILL. [Lords]

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

LONG LEASES (SCOTLAND) BILL,

"to amend the law of Scotland with regard to long leases," presented by Mr. James Reid; supported by Mr. Stevenson, Mr. Albert Russell, and Mr. Milne; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 44.]

HERRING INDUSTRY BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 45.]

SELECTION (STANDING COM- MITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Sir Robert Hamilton; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. McKeag.

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Bill): Mr. Barclay-Harvey, Colonel Broadbent, Mr. Charles Brown, Mr. Elliot, Mr. Gluckstein, Mr. Kingsley Griffith, Major Hills, Sir Gerald Hurst, Mr. Liddall, and Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.

Considered in Committee. [EIGHTH DAY—Progress 6th March.]

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

4.1 p.m.

The CHAIRMAN: I would like to make a brief observation or two to the Committee as to the arrangements under which we are working. It will be remembered that I was appointed Chairman of the Committee responsible for the allocation of time. That Committee remains in being, and I hope will meet again on Thursday, but I was unable to arrange a meeting before to-day's sitting as I wished to do, and therefore I consulted one or two Members of the Committee, and I thought it might be useful to give this Committee an idea of how we stand. This is the 8th allotted day, and therefore at the end of the sitting we shall have used up two more days than those which were allocated to the end of Clause 45. If I may say so, I do not think that there is any great harm in that, or any great danger to the arrangement. I think the spirit and idea of the arrangement has been loyally carried out in all quarters. The position, of course, is that at present we have used two of the spare days.
I have gone very carefully into this Bill and all the Amendments on the Paper, and it is quite clear that we shall want considerable discussion on certain parts of the Bill later on, but I hope it will be possible to save one day, perhaps, on some other part of the Bill.
The position, therefore, looks rather as if we had just about time, but none too much to spare, and I have discussed particularly with the Whips of the Opposition and of hon. Members below the Gangway on the Opposition side the position of the Amendment Paper with regard to to-day, and I am glad to say that I think that they agree with me that it is not unreasonable to hope, perhaps at some time between 11 o'clock and midnight to-day, to get to the end of Clause 45. There will be, I know, some discussion on Clause 18 which we are now on. Although there are a good many Amendments to be called on following Clauses, most of them should not take very long
to discuss, except on Clause 30, which raises a question of financial procedure, and possibly Clauses 38 and 40. Therefore, I venture, if I may, to appeal to hon. Members to try to carry on the arrangement in the same way as they have done, and save as much time as possible over the shorter Amendments, so that we may discuss the more important Clauses and finish Clause 45 to-night.

4.4 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: In respect of the guidance you have been good enough to give us, might I venture, first of all, to say that I think it is over-sanguine to expect that we should conclude Clause 45 this evening? There are several Clauses of considerable importance and many of great interest, and I should have thought that to-morrow we should be certain to be clear of this most important Chapter of the federal part of the Bill; but, naturally, we must do the best we can in view of what you have said. I had been thinking that it would be necessary for us to-day to ask for a more general statement from the Government as to our position on this Bill, either on a Motion to report Progress or on a Motion to recommit the Bill in consequence of the very great uncertainty which exists as to the permanency of all the work we are now doing, but I feel that in view of this friendly arrangement which we all wish to see a success, and a precedent for future House of Commons procedure, it would be better to accomplish Clause 45 and finish this part.
I gather from an answer which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India gave, or which was given on his behalf, that he will to-morrow be in a position to make some statement as to laying Papers before the House in regard to the later developments of the negotiations with the Indian Princes. If that were so, and we could accomplish Clause 45 satisfactorily this week, and perhaps get some little way beyond it, it would appear most desirable that we should have a general review of the position on the first day this Bill is taken next week, because otherwise we are discussing the Bill upon a basis which seems to be very ill-related to realities. May I add how glad we are to see the Secretary of State back and recovered in his health? I earnestly hope that if we are to sit up till 12 o'clock to-night, he will not feel that his presence is necessary.
I am sure that we shall not make less progress if he finds it necessary to withdraw.

4.7 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: We are glad to see the Secretary of State again in his place. I should like to say that we want to carry out the friendly arrangement that has been made. While we have some very important Amendments to-day, and do not under-estimate the importance of this section, we must enter a caveat, because there are very important sections, Schedules and so forth coming later on which we have to raise some matters quite as important which concern the people of India as well as the Princes. I enter that caveat now.

The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman regards me as an optimist, but I know that I shall have his good will to support my optimisim.

CLAUSE 18.—(Constitution of the Legislature.)

4.9 p.m.

Mr. RAIKES: I beg to move, in page 11, line 37, at the end, to add:
Provided that the Governor-General may extend the life of the Assembly in pursuance of a resolution to that effect passed by both Houses of Parliament.
This Amendment I can move very briefly, although it is an important one. Its object is to give the same power to the Governor-General as the Viceroy possesses at the present time, if necessary to extend the life of the Assembly by a resolution to that effect passed by both Houses of Parliament. The object is a very obvious one. It may, indeed, happen—it happened in the past—that at a time when the Assembly would naturally be dissolved, there might be a state of unrest in the country, and it might be unwise to (have a general election at such a time for fear of party intimidation. As a result of what has happened earlier on this Bill, this Amendment assumes perhaps greater importance than it has ever had before. The result of this Committee deciding on the principle of indirect election versus direct election at the Federal centre, whenever there is an election it will mean that a comparatively small number of persons will have the privilege of electing once again those who are to serve at the centre, and whatever may be the merits of indirect elec-
tion, undoubtedly the fewer the electors the more easy and possible it is for them to be intimidated by various powers from outside. We all know that, not only in India but even at home. Efforts of intimidation are sometimes made, and we are most anxious that if ever this Bill passes into law, which I very much doubt, the Indians themselves should have every opportunity of using their unfettered and free judgment when it comes to these elections. Therefore, I do ask my right hon. Friend to melt his stony heart just a little this afternoon, to think of those unfortunate electors who may be facing the storm and stress' of intimidation, and to say that once in a way he will look in a very generous spirit at an Amendment which is merely asking that the Governor-General shall have power in time of riot so that the Assembly shall be prolonged until it is safe, reasonable and proper for an election to be held in the interests of the electorate, and in the interests of India itself.

4.12 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): The Committee will have a fellow-feeling for the hon. Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Raikes) this afternoon, but I am afraid that in answer to his Amendment I shall not be able to exhibit those feelings of tender heartedness for which he appeals. I must give the Committee one or two reasons why we have to be comparatively stony-hearted on this Amendment, The Assembly, under the terms of this Measure, will have a life of five years, which I may remind the Committee is two years more than the life of the Assembly as at present, which is three years. Moreover, the Government at the Centre will be, according to the terms of this Bill, a responsible Government subject to the various provisions of the Bill as we know them, and we do not think it desirable, under the system of government we are setting up at the centre, to make it different from that which prevails ordinarily in responsible government in this country. We believe, therefore, that it would be unwise to include a provision of the sort proposed. When we come to examine the actual terms of the Amendment we see that it is to be done
in pursuance of a resolution to that effect passed by both Houses of Parliament.
I think it would be very inappropriate to demand a resolution of both Houses of Parliament to deal with this particular form of emergency, even if we had thought it wise to include it in the provisions of this Measure. We think that it is much better to leave this provision to the man on the spot. Therefore, we think the terms of the Amendment inadvisable and inappropriate, and I regret very much that we are unable to accept it.

4.14 p.m.

Lord SCONE: One of the chief reasons put forward by the Under-Secretary against this Amendment, namely, that it is not in a form which the Government can approve, I think falls to the ground by its own weight, because it is obvious that the Government might do something if they felt inclined. As regards the other point, I would like to supplement what the hon. Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Raikes) has said as to the causes which might bring such an emergency about. It need not be merely a question of intimidation. It might well be that, despite all the efforts made to avoid these disasters by the British Government during the last few years, we might again be faced by wholesale famine or an outbreak of something like malaria or plague throughout India. Can it be suggested as desirable that a general election should be held in such circumstances, and thereby, undoubtedly, very greatly increase the risk of disturbance and cause disaster to assume still more widespread proportions? I cannot say that the arguments brought forward against the Amendment are of a very substantial nature. I should prefer that the Government would give us some indication that they have real reason for opposing the Amendment and that they are not merely instigated by the reasons given by the Under-Secretary, one of which falls to the ground and the others of which I respectfully submit, are not by any means of any great weight.

4.16 p.m.

Mr. AMERY: My hon. Friend the Noble Lord has overlooked the fact that elections to the Central Legislature are indirect. There is therefore no danger of a general election involving contact with cholera during time of plague, or involving general disturbance. All that would happen would be that the candi-
dates would get into touch with the members of the Assembly in the provincial capitals and the elections would be far less disturbing and difficult than now. I am afraid therefore that that part of his argument has no great force.

4.17 p.m.

Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: It seems to me that the point raised by the hon. Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Raikes) is of considerable constitutional importance. In order to understand it we have to get rid of the false analogy that may be made between the position of the British Parliament in this country and the other Parliaments within the Empire. His Majesty the King and the Lords and Commons acting together are a truly sovereign power. Therefore, it follows that the British Parliament cannot bind its successors. Take the case made by the hon. Member. Suppose this Parliament were to pass a law that no future Parliament should have the power to prolong its own life. The very next Parliament could if it wished repeal that law. That is an attribute of a sovereign power, but it does not follow that because the British Parliament has the power of prolonging its own life it is necessary or desirable as a part of a parliamentary system. We have it because in effect we cannot get rid of it. If we look at the other Parliaments in the Empire, the Parliaments of the great self-governing Dominions, we do not find that power, and I do not see why that power should be given to India when it is withheld from the Parliaments of the self-governing Dominions.
The hon. Member urged the question of a state of unrest. He thought that the time of the election might come along and be unfavourable because of a state of unrest. That brings one to the principal argument against the Amendment. The very fact that a popular assembly has to be dissolved within a limited number of years is a very useful safety valve for the Parliamentary system. Let us take, for example, the position of the Opposition in this House. We always know that within a comparatively few years they will have an opportunity of putting their case before the electors and there will be a chance that, if they do it well enough, they will take the place of the Government in power. I regard that as
a vital feature of Parliamentary government, and it is moat important that it should be conserved in the Constitution that we are giving to India. It would be a great mistake to prevent that safety valve from acting. I would further observe that where in other countries of the world this safety valve is not allowed to operate, as is commonly observed, for example, in South American Republics, where the Government of the day succeeds by some means or other in preventing the Opposition from getting a fair chance and the Government of the day seeks to prolong the period of its own life, there is a violent upheaval, which often causes the downfall of that Government. That is a striking illustration of the value of this safety valve and the necessity of a periodical verdict of the electors. I hope the Committee will insist upon that condition being upheld in the Government of India Bill.

4.21 p.m.

Mr. COCKS: This Amendment would be very undesirable. If both Houses of Parliament were put into the position of being able to pass a resolution prolonging the life of the Indian Parliament, they might take it into their heads to pass a resolution prolonging the life of this Parliament. That is something to be guarded against. We oppose the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

4.22 p.m.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Before we give power to set up this Federal Legislature it is only reasonable that we should be fairly certain that the particular form of legislative machinery that we are setting up is one that is best suited to Indian needs and Indian mentality. The only data we have to guide us in this matter is the operation of the Act of 1919. In the opinion of the Statutory Commission that Act has not been in force for a sufficient length of time for any real judgment to be formed as to whether the particular legislature that has been given under that Act is one that is best suited to Indian needs and Indian mentality. It is necessary therefore before we
duplicate what is being set up in the Provinces that we should be reasonably certain that it is the best form of legislative and administrative machinery. The Statutory Commission in reporting on this matter said that before proceeding with Federation we must be reasonably certain that the form of government now in force is the right one.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member must recollect that this is not the occasion for making a Second Reading speech on the Bill. The question of Federation has been definitely discussed and decided upon. The hon. and gallant Member must confine his remarks strictly to the contents of Clause 18 and avoid discussing those questions on the Clause which have already been fully debated such, for instance, as the issue of direct or indirect election.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: I accept your Ruling, but as we are setting up this Federal Legislature I thought that I was entitled to argue that India was not ready to accept the particular form which we intend to set up.

4.24 p.m.

Mr. COCKS: Before we pass from this Clause, I should like to say a few words on it. I think the Clause embodies one of the greatest mistakes that the Joint Select Committee made in departing from the original scheme of the White Paper. In that White Paper, as a result of the Round Table Conferences, the' scheme was very different from this one. We had a lower Chamber directly representing the people of India and we had a revising Chamber representing the lower Chambers of the Provincial Legislatures? All that has gone. The original upper Chamber has become the lower Chamber, and in place of the lower Chamber we have a Chamber representing the Princes and the upper Chambers of the Provinces. We have there reaction doubly enthroned.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Surely the question of whether the Council of State shall be constituted by the votes of the upper Chambers of the Provinces will not be discussed on this Clause, but will come up for discussion on the Schedule. I want to reserve the right to discuss that matter later. If it were dealt with now we might be precluded from discussing it later.

Mr. COCKS: I did not intend to say any more than to make that statement. We have in the proposed second Chamber all the interests and all the despotisms. We have the money Barons and the Maharajas sitting cheek by jowl and turban to turban, and they will present an insuperable barrier to social reform and progress.
The Secretary of State is a very difficult man to argue with. For the last two years when I have listened to him in the Joint Select Committee I have come to the conclusion that he is a reasonable being. When I have heard him arguing with the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) I have thought that he acts as a very reasonable man, but when we try to move him with the voice of sweet reason he is quite a different person. He then turns on us a stern and implacable front. When he is arguing with the right hon. Member for Epping I sometimes forget that he is a Conservative, but when he argues with us I see that he is one. Then, what I thought was reason hardens into prejudice and what I thought was logic hardens into authoritarianism, and he falls back on his majorities. That being the case, I do not think that it is any use arguing on this Clause any longer. I simply want to put it on record from our point of view that we regard the change which the Bill has made from the original scheme of the White Paper as a great mistake, and we believe that the future history of India will show that we are right.

4.28 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I find myself in general agreement with the condemnatory epitome of this Clause which has fallen from the lips of the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks). It is one of the most important Clauses in the Bill, because it presents to us the structure of the new Assembly which is to exercise responsible government over all India. I have asked myself whether, upon the whole, the scheme of this Clause, set where it is in the general articulation of the Bill is not the worst legislature that ever was planned. Perhaps I ought to abate a little the rigour of my assertion, because no one can have an exhaustive knowledge of all the legislatures that ever have been planned, but certainly this is the worst that I have ever seen brought
before this House and the one least likely to give contentment or proper government to the persons for whom it is designed. What the hon. Member for Broxtowe has said seems to be true. The Government have taken away from the people of India, from the electors, 1,500,000 of them, direct election to the existing Assembly, and in place of that they have substituted indirect election, which the Secretary of State opposed, which the Government of India opposed, which the White Paper opposed and which was introduced into the Joint Select Committee as the result of all kinds of negotiations, over which the veil of hitherto unviolated secrecy had been thrown.
I certainly was told that one of the reasons which weighed with the Commissioners who went out there in advocating direct election was the danger of a caucus, the danger of corrupt influences being brought to bear on the comparatively small number of people who now will choose. That danger resumes itself in all its force, and at the same time the salutory relief of a dissolution, is practically robbed of its efficacy. The same answer will to a large extent be returned even if the Assembly is sent about its business. One of the greatest safeguards of parliamentary institutions is the power of dissolution, the certainty, that assemblies can be scattered to the winds, and there is what is called a new deal operating in parliamentary and political affairs. But for that destruction would overtake all legislative assemblies. They would become odious to those in whose name they presume to act. In this system you will have an assembly increasingly hide-bound and stable. You will take away altogether from your Indian polity that indispensable device—namely, a dissolution, and a new set of men, which has everywhere been found necessary for parliamentary procedure.
As for the second Chamber, I suppose it will be about the richest body in the world, man for man. It will certainly be a chamber which will be well able to protect the rights of property, I do not mean the rights of British property, but Indian property. They may not take a very high view about the interests of British merchants and manufacturers, or of the Lancashire traders, but I think it will be very strong in interpreting the rights of property when it is a question of the interests of the Ahmenabad or
Bombay mill-owners, who are large subscribers to the funds of the dominant party in India. It will be strong in enforcing the sanctity of contracts and the interests of the money-lending classes, and will no doubt take a robust view of the interests of landed proprietors. In religious matters it is highly probable that their bias will be strongly conservative. As for the general questions of social legislation and so forth, it is unlikely that any strong initiative will come from this body. And remember that this institution which you are now imposing on India, which you are now ramming down the throats of Indians, whether they like it or not, will be largely unalterable. There they will be, and there they will remain. You are riveting the shackles of the worst aspects of capitalism without its progressive reforms, and without its continued elections and refreshed assemblies. And you are riveting these shackles upon the people of India for an indefinite period.
Compared with the present Assembly this new federal structure is at a serious disadvantage. We are told how much stronger it is to be, and how we are escaping from the defects of the present weak Assembly. It has not worked so ill. The people have got used to it, they have voted for it, and have associations with it. It is true that the Government defer too much to it, although not perhaps too much, having regard to the tolerant working of British rule in India. In its place you are substituting this new body in Clause 18, this new organism, with what are called responsible powers. I think that the Government have throughout proceeded upon a wrong assumption in regard to the part which will be played in the Chamber by the Princes. All through our Debates we have heard the suggestion that you can safely dispense with the official bloc; that you can safely entrust what is called responsible government to the new Assembly because of the representatives of the Princes of India who will be there, who are expected to sustain British interests and give stability and responsibility to the structure. We are asking the Princes to become as it were the champions of British action in the Assembly and the defenders of the prerogatives of the Governor-General and the safeguards. That is a strain to which
it is very unfair to expose them in the eyes of their fellow countrymen.
I believe also that you are putting a burden on the Princes which they will not accept, even if they come in. Nothing is more remarkable than the quickness with which solidarity has been established between the Princes and political forces in India. The Secretary of State and the Conservative party who are going forward on this issue, suppose that they are going to have a bulwark and security in the Princes which will counteract the subversive and violent forces which exist in India. I think they will find that they are on very insecure foundation. You are asking more than you ought of the Princes in asking them to undertake such responsibilities. In principle this abstraction, which you are clothing with reality and which you call the Indian nation, will act together in all matters or in almost all matters on which the cleavage is between Indian national aspirations and the safeguards retained by the British executive.
I have not had time to count the numbers accurately, but I think there are some 600 gentlemen, or 615, who will be gathered at Delhi. I agree with the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) that they will have very little to do. What are they to do?. You have only to read Clause 12 and see what they may not do to realise that it utterly destroys the reality of responsible government. No one can read that Clause and the Clauses which immediately follow, which enable the Governor-General himself to legislate by ordinance or by proclamation, or to take over at any time the entire Constitution, in conjunction with Clause 18, and imagine that what is being given to this new body, to these institutions, is responsible government or anything like it. It is a farce and a mockery on the name of responsible government. When we are told that the Princes insisted on responsible government and now say that they will not come in, they have a right to say that the condition of responsible government has not been made good.
You are not giving them responsible government. What are you giving them? You are giving them something which is more dangerous than responsible government; you are giving them the power to extort responsible government by all the
weapons of Parliamentary procedure. They will have very little to do except to find fault, to press for the abolition of the safeguards. They will have very little to do except to carry out those tariff wars against South Africa and Australia, to which the Secretary of State referred the other day in terms from which a suspicion of gusto was not wholly excluded. They will be able to deal with tariffs—they are under their control—so long as they do not discriminate against British trade; and by raising their tariffs they will be able to bring endless pressure to bear on the Governor-General by maltreating Lancashire trade and British trade until he accepts their point of view or the Government dispenses with these indispensable safeguards. And you are inducing the Conservative party to become the draught animals to drag this Bill through. It is not responsible government.
The Clause sets up an arena of strife, in which will be fought a controversy not novel in the world, a struggle which we went through in the 16th and 17th centuries, between representative institutions, which had one set of ideas, and the prerogative of an almost potentially absolute monarch on the other. The friction will be endless. This will be an assembly given over to politics. It will occupy its time with politics. It will seek to gain for itself those attributes of that responsibility which you have pretended to confer upon it, and in that process you are inaugurating a decade of friction, tumult, disturbance, disorder, irritation and anger in India, at a time when the healing processes of constructive economy and of industry should repair the depression through which the country is passing and make some definite inroad upon the awful poverty in which the great masses of the Indian people are plunged.
We see in this Clause a bad piece of work. Happily I do not think that it will come to fruition. I do not think that it will ever emerge from the paper form in which it has darkened the pages of this bulky Bill into actual operation. I predict that that will not be so. The Princes will not come in, and, if they do not, then obviously the whole of the structure is meaningless and invalid. The Lord Chancellor said some time ago that
the Princes would not dash the cup from the parched lips of India. They have dashed the cup from the parched lips of India, from one end of the country to the other, and drawn forth a chorus of jubilation hailing them as deliverers. The policy of the Government, the aim and the ideal they set before themselves, is a united India. We may congratulate them. They have united India from one end to the other, from Karachi to Rangoon, from the Khyber Pass to Tuticorin, from rajah to ryot, from untouchable committee to mahasabha. All, without exception, have joined together, united, speaking with one voice and one heart, and repudiating this scheme of which Clause 18 is one of the central and perhaps the most peccant part.

4.46 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) referred, more in sorrow than in anger, to my dual personality, and I am not quite sure in which capacity I am addressing the Committee at this moment.

Mr. McGOVERN: We will see as you go on.

Sir S. HOARE: Yes. Let me for a moment turn from the pessimistic prophecies of my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), to the wording of this Clause, which sets up the Federal Legislature. There is one serious question at issue between the various sections of the Committee, namely, the question between direct and indirect election, and we have discussed that in some detail. Apart, however, from that, there has been through all the long discussions which we have had on the constitutional question a remarkable body of agreement about the structure of the Federal Legislature generally. It seemed to me, listening to my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping, that he did not realise the kind of legislature which we were setting up, namely, a federal legislature. A federal legislature differs in many respect from a unitary legislature. A federal legislature has a definite sphere of activity, in this case to a great extent of a technical or semi-technical character, and it is essential that a federal legislature should be in the closest touch with the federal
units. That is the justification for the structure of this Legislature, firstly, that it is a legislature with certain definite duties, unlike this Parliament, with authority over all the field of legislation, and, secondly, that it is a legislature which it is much more important to keep in the closest possible touch with the federal units, namely, the provincial Legislatures, than with a rather shadowy central electorate in a great continent like the Indian continent.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Can my right hon. Friend tell me of any other important federation like this one which it is proposed to set up?

Sir S. HOARE: The hon. Member very often asks that question, and my answer is always the same. The case of India is indeed in many ways unique. I do not want to refer to the arguments, which we have all heard over and over again in the course of these discussions, but that is the main justification for the structure of the Federal Legislature. Now let me come to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping. We are getting used to that type of speech. It is obvious what my right hon. Friend is trying to do. He is trying, on each and every occasion, to put up scarecrows to warn various sections of Indian opinion against any possible acceptance of this Bill. We had a very good instance of his endeavour this afternoon, when he came out as the great champion of the rights of the small people and held up the Federal Assembly as a body that was going to rivet the shackles of the worst aspects of capitalism on India for ever. That was a scarecrow set up to warn the smaller people in India against the acceptance of this Clause or this Measure. Then my right hon. Friend had a word about the Princes. There again he had his scarecrow for them. He was really addressing the Princes, if I may say so, much more than he was addressing this Committee this afternoon. He was in effect saying to them: "Do not have anything to do with this accursed Clause, because, if you do come in, you will be swept on by these nationalist Waves, and your presence will not be of any value to a body of this kind. Keep away from it."
Well, we all understood that, and so, I feel sure, do the Indian Princes; so, I feel sure, do most of the other sections
of Indian opinion. They do not take my right hon. Friend's advice at its face value. They know what he is after, and that is, at any cost, by any means, by any brick taken from any heap that he can find gathered together, among hon. Members opposite or any other section of this Committee, to destroy the Bill. In the course of these Debates we have got used to this endeavour of the right hon. Gentleman which he is making day in and day out, in season and out of season. We have got used to his arguments, and I am quite sure that nobody in India takes him seriously. I am quite sure that there is nothing that he has said to-day that will have the least influence upon either Princes or persons in India, and I am equally sure that the pessimistic prophecy that he made at the end of his speech, namely, that the Princes have already destroyed Federation, will be proved to be totally without foundation.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is going to try to answer some of the arguments which I have put forward? He has not answered one.

4.53 p.m.

Mr. AMERY: I want to say a word about the argument that the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) addressed to us in a very long speech. I have been trying throughout these Debates to discover what is the principle of opposition to this Bill upon which my right hon. Friend acts. There was a time, earlier in the discussions, when I thought his principle was a determined vindication of the recommendations of the Simon Commission as an almost divinely inspired document. Of course, it was thrown over when it was unanimous on the subject of law arid order, and on other occasions, and now we find that it is thrown over equally on the subject of indirect election, which is treated as entirely preposterous and impossible. What other principle is there? At one time we were assured that the only principle was the authority of Parliament; at another it is the authority of Congress. I am really at a loss to discover any principle in my right hon. Friend's criticisms, except this, that every Clause and every line of a Bill promoted by this Government must be bad and must afford justification for a long speech of a portentousness to which few of us can
attain and which some of us sufferers find a little difficult to sustain. I only wish, on behalf of a considerable body of Members of this Committee, that we might sometimes have one grain of constructive criticism to a bushel of the purely destructive.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. DONNER: I only rise to make one or two observations arising from the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). I am sure that my right hon. Friend is more than capable of defending himself, but if he will allow me to say so, I think the attack delivered on him just now by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) was unjust—and I am within the recollection of the Committee—in view of the fact that the speech just delivered by my right hon. Friend did not extend beyond a quarter of an hour, which is surely not too long a speech on this vitally important Clause. The point that I wish to raise arising out of that speech is the position of the Princes in the eyes of the Government. They are regarded as a great stable and Conservative element in the Assembly which is to be set up by this Clause, an element on which we can in fact rely rather than upon the old official bloc which is now to disappear. My right hon. Friend drew attention to the fact that it was wrong to expect the Princes to pull our chestnuts out of the fire for us—a phrase used some months ago by the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer)—and surely if we regard this subject, we must realise the truth of that contention. By glancing at the map of India we see what we are asking the Princes in this Assembly to do. Most of these States in India are surrounded by British India, are surrounded, in fact, by territory dominated by Congress and Congress wallahs, and it will be simple for Congress agitators to cross the borders of the States and to cause riot and agitation in the States against those Princes who are following a policy in the Assembly with which they disagree. It is a well known policy, and they have a name for it, the word Jatha, which describes an agitation started in British India and then carried across the border and waged against the ruler of one of the States.
If any ruler in the Assembly were to take the line which His Majesty's Government hopes they will pursue, a pro-British or stable policy, then it will be-perfectly simple for these agitators to go across the borders into his State and cause as much commotion as they please. It will be easy enough to do so, particularly where the ruler belongs to a different religion from that of the majority of the population of the State, and, as the Committee knows, inter-racial antagonism is a powerful element to which to appeal. I think the Government are putting an undue strain on the Princes and placing them in an invidious position which no Government has a right to put them in. I have always understood that we, as the paramount Power in India, are called upon to defend the Princes both from external aggression and internal commotion, but if you set up this Assembly and ask the Princes to carry out the duties which you are now imposing upon them, you are not carrying out your obligation to save them from internal commotion, even if you are defending them from external aggression.

4.58 p.m.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I do not entirely agree with hon. Members opposite that this Clause would be a very serious injury to the Princes in India. I should say that they have a great deal to get out of this Bill and this Clause, but I think the Clause should not go through without some expression of the feeling of the Indian people about this matter. There are only two things that the Indians really object to strongly in this Bill. One is communal representation and the other is the Federation, involving this strange new chamber. We all know that Federation has a magical attraction, as if this were a proper Federation, as if this new House that we are setting up to rule India at the Centre were indeed a Federation such as we have in Australia and South Africa, If that were the case, it would indeed be a very different attitude that we should find in India to-day, but the difficulty is that they have just discovered that this Federation, with all its apparent attractions, really means the establishment of an upper and a lower Chamber at Delhi which are a contradiction of everything that we understand by democracy.
While it is useless to continue to express that opinion indefinitely in this House the Government should realise that in passing this Clause they are creating a permanent, a fatal position in India. We know perfectly well that this is a substitute for the official bloc. The official bloc nominated by the Secretary of State is an infinitely preferable system to this facade which obviously involves a certain amount of difficulty on our part, and which, moreover, involves us not merely in India but throughout all the world in the charge of insincerity and hypocrisy. We are not giving something to India; we are simply substituting for a fairly honest form of British control a new form of control by people who have not our standards and traditions, who may be everything that Indians should be, but who cannot by the very fact of the form of their representation, by the fact that they are irresponsible, have the real good of India at heart, and ought not to be put on a par with Indians who do legislate for themselves and who represent either by nomination or election some people in India.
My consolation in the whole thing is that I think both upper and lower Chambers will not be very important bodies. The importance in India will gradually shift over to the Provinces, and the mere reporting of speeches in the Assembly will gradually die out. An Assembly which legislates less and less becomes more and more a function and a display of costumes. An Assembly of that sort will as time goes on sink in relative importance with the various Provincial Councils throughout India. It is inevitable that it should be so. Their powers of control over the Provinces are not very extensive as they are, and they will get gradually less. It will be more and more impossible for a central body chosen in this way to get their way if they are in opposition to a directly elected provincial council. The legislation they will undertake will be more and more circumscribed. Fewer people will seek a career by going to that Chamber. From that point of view, I think it is all to the good. We shall have the opening of the Assembly and the great processional road into Delhi will be filled with chariots and elephants. We shall see our friend Sir Akbar Hydari on an elephant, followed by his henchmen; Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru in his Rolls Royce; Mr. Joshi with his
attendant satellites. It will be a great and magnificent procession. White parasols and elephants—these are the flowers of Constitution.

Earl WINTERTON: Shall we see Socialists and Conservatives in conjunction as we do in this House?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I hope not. Do not make it too bad.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am perfectly certain we could do as well if we had' the proper leader. I look forward to the time when the procession of elephants and what-not will be led by a proper Viceroy. It will be an official assembly I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will have. With all that magnificence to show, it is a fairly impotent body you will establish. It will have the solid virtue that it will always be predominantly Conservative. That virtue is, unfortunately, one that the Indian people can dispense with, for they think it is more in accordance with British ideas of democracy and constitution.

5.9 p.m.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I should very much regret if the picture drawn by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is realised in the history of India. If it is, I am bound to say that that result will be largely attributable to the indirect vote which has been decided upon by this House. The only matter we are deciding in Clause 18 is that we set up this Federal Chamber, with a second Chamber and the Assembly, and we are deciding that they should sit for five years. I hope we are not deciding, by the passing of this Clause, that we are going to have a Council of State constituted in the manner outlined later on in the Bill. I assume when we come to that part of the Bill it will be open to the discussion of the House, and we are not committing ourselves in any way to the constitution of the Council of State on the lines which have been condemned by the right hon. Gentleman. We have decided one matter in this House. We have decided in the discussion of this Clause something that is not within the Clause; that is, indirect election. That is in consequence of the Amendment put down. It was important that that Amendment should be put down early, and we have to accept the decision of the House. I understand it is
not in order to discuss the merits of direct and indirect election, and we are accepting the ruling upon that. But a reference has been made, and that reference has brought me to my feet.
The Secretary of State said just now that one of the reasons for the substitution of indirect election for direct election was that there should be this close association between the federal units and the centre. I cannot accept that argument. There would have been an association between the federal units and the centre under the White Paper, until the alteration was made by the majority of the Joint Select Committee. That association would have been in the representation through the Provincial Parliaments to the Council of State. That would have maintained an association which certainly is desirable. If it is suggested that this additional association is needed, and that was the point of the right hon. Gentleman's speech in advocating indirect election for direct election, I put this question to the House: Assume that your members have been elected by these little groups of people in the Provinces and these groups disappear, as they might, in Province after Province. A new election might take place in a Province and the group that sent representatives on to the centre has gone. What this House has never answered in the course of the Debate, and what has not been answered to-day is: Who will these people at the centre represent in that event? Someone has elected them, but the electorate consisting, it may be, of six, seven, eight or nine people in a room in the Provinces has gone, in consequence of the disappearance of the Provincial Parliament in the meantime. You are left at the centre with central representatives at the Assembly who have no constituencies at all.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The hon. Gentleman ought to grasp the fact that the people we are responsible to are not the pople who elected us but the people who may re-elect us next time. I do not pay the slightest attention to the people who elected me last time; it is the people who are going to elect me next time I am after.

Mr. FOOT: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot brush aside the argument in that fashion, because
the difficulty I put was the difficulty present in the mind of the Government of India. If the right hon. Gentleman will read what was said in the Government of India dispatch in 1930, following on this recommendation of the Statutory Committee, he will see they attached great importance to it. There is no parallel whatever between the right hon. Gentleman representing a constituency that does exist right through the time of this Parliament, and the member at the centre in India representing a group which has since disappeared as a group. He will admit that in whatever he does now he is responsible to someone, who can watch his actions. There is no one in the circumstances that I have assumed who can watch the actions of the member at the centre, and you can have a system in which there may be a number of members at the centre who represent nobody at all. If the argument is set aside as being unimportant because I have submitted it, I would ask those who are concerned in this question to give their attention to it, because it was present to the mind of the Government of India—

The CHAIRMAN: Is not that matter dealt with in the Schedule?

Mr. FOOT: The matter was raised by the Secretary of State. It was mentioned by the earlier speakers. Am I doing anything wrong in commenting on a statement made earlier?

The CHAIRMAN: No. Again, this is a case in which references may be made, but they cannot be followed up. I think the hon. Member will see what I mean. I interrupted him in the form of a question because he knows as well as anybody in the Committee what is in the Schedule, and the time to discuss that is when the Schedule comes before us.

Mr. FOOT: I quite agree. I will not go into all the merits of indirect and direct election, but when the point was put on the Floor of the House to-day that the indirect method would secure that connection between the centre and the Provinces, I thought as one who had been responsible for the Amendment discussed earlier it was my duty to refer to the point. I was interrupted by the right hon. Gentleman below me, and, if I went too far in answering his interruption, I accept your correction. Without
going into the merits of that vast issue, I can only express my very deep regret that the decision was on the lines the House took last Wednesday. I believe that the biggest opportunity we have had, in the course of these discussions, of conciliating Indian opinion was missed, and although I do not doubt the sincerity of the great majority who voted against that Amendment, I am afraid that the history of these proposals and of this Measure in the years to come will show how serious was the mistake that we made in the vote that we took.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: My right hon. Friend the Member for Spark-brook (Mr. Amery) told us that he could not discover why hon. Members opposed this Bill. I am presumptuous enough to be opposed to the Bill because in my humble opinion it will never work. The right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) and the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) have drawn attention to the anomalies that exist in the constitution of this federal parliament, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) seems to think that these Chambers are vitiated by the principle on which they are elected, to which, of course, I cannot refer. The anomalies inherent in this Clause, in this constitution, were very present to the minds of the Joint Select Committee. When they had completed their scheme and looked upon it and found it good, they wrote a brilliant survey, which fills one with admiration but regret. When they came to the consideration of the constitution of these Chambers they said:
We have here an obvious anomaly, a federation composed of separate constituent units in which the powers and authority of the central government would differ as between one constituent and another.
They were conscious of the anomaly. But they argued the matter, and chiefly for fiscal and economic reasons they decided in favour of the scheme before us, In my humble opinion the balance comes down on the other side. We have here two categories of members. We have elected members from British India and nominated members—two categories of differing status and powers. I ask the Committee, how long will the elected members from British India tolerate the
125 nominees of the lower Chamber having a full voice in the affairs of British India while the elected members from British India have a very small voice in the affairs of the States?
I would remind the Committee that it was considerations of that sort that killed the Home Rule Bills of 1885 and 1893. I heard Mr. Gladstone introduce the Home Rule Bill of 1893, and he was answered brilliantly by Sir Edward Clarke. The Bill proposed to bring in 80 members to vote on Irish questions but not upon Imperial questions, and when it was shown that these members would vote on the question of a vote of confidence the Bill was killed. I would that Sir Edward Clarke were here to deal with this Bill. It would take the combined genius of Alexander Hamilton and Lord Durham and Bismarck to make this Constitution work. There is another point, the communal point. What is the great question in India? It is the communal difference. It should be the object of statesmanship to try to construct a Constitution that will solve and eventually cause to disappear that great communal cleavage in India. But this scheme stereotypes that difference. You have your constituencies founded upon the communal question.

The CHAIRMAN: We have not yet reached that subject.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: I am sorry if I was wandering outside the Clause. Both for constitutional reasons and communal reasons, I find that this Federal Constitution which the Bill proposes at the centre contains in itself the germs of disruption. I believe it will never work. That being so, I find there is an air of unreality about the whole of our discussion. In order to make things real we ought to have a declaration by the Government of the exact position of the Government.

5.22 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I am very sorry to have to say it, but on many occasions in these Debates I have listened with great surprise to statements made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State, and on more than one occasion I have felt it my duty to point out that some of his statements would not bear examinations. I must say that to-day I listened with almost greater amazement than ever before to the
attack that he made on my light hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). It does seem to me that it ill becomes one who has at his back the faithful and dumb legions of the Conservative party and of the Liberal party to doubt the sincerity of someone who for over four years, with at first very few colleagues to support him, has stood up against these proposals. I claim that no one has the right to doubt the sincerity of any Member who will face the opposition of so great a majority. I am very glad indeed to remember that the Lord President of the Council, when he spoke in this House in December, repeatedly and emphatically said that he did not doubt the sincerity of those who differed from him in this matter. I would add that if there are people in India who to-morrow will read a report of this Debate, what it seems to me is bound to occasion most surprise on the part of the Princes will be to find the Secretary of State again ignoring the very strong indications that we have had of their opposition to these particular proposals of the Bill. It has been said that no shorthand notes were taken at the meeting of the Princes. We know now that that is not the case, and therefore there is reason to suppose that the accounts published are not at all far from the truth.
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville) as to the unreality in which we are arguing this question. On many occasions I have felt that unreality, but never more so than now. My right hon. Friend the Member for Epping expressed doubts as to whether the Princes' representatives would be able to become a stabilising element in the Federal Legislature—the stabilising element on which the Government, we know, base their hopes. I would remind the Committee that the Princes themselves have shown their fear as to whether their representatives will be able to play that very important part, because their representative before the Joint Select Committee spoke of the desire of the Princes that there should be a confederation of their own order, which they wished to see every Prince enter if possible before entering the Federation, and it was shown that the reason for that confedera-
tion was that their representatives might go to the Federal Legislature pledged to act and vote as one. What does that mean? Obviously it means that the Princes are afraid that if there is not some compulsory pooling of votes in the Federation their representatives will not act together to form a solid bloc.
Recent divisions that have taken place in the present Assembly show the power of the Hindu Congress party to command votes, even of Moslems. Figures supplied by the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock) show that in some of the important recent divisions there were Moslems who voted with the Hindu Congress party. If that party can attract to itself Moslem votes when we know how bitterly divided these two communities are, does it not stand to reason that it may be very difficult for Hindu representatives of the States to stand out against the Congress—that is against the extreme nationalist opinion coming from British India? It is particularly important to remember that Hindus are in a much greater majority in the States than in British India, and that therefore the great majority of representatives of the States must inevitably be Hindus, who, as things are now as between Hindus and Moslems, may find it extremely difficult to avoid giving a general support to the policy advocated by the Hindus.
I feel that it is very unfair to put on the Princes the burden of standing up to the extreme views that are likely to be advanced by the politicians from British India, particularly as autocratic States may very well be in a very weak position. They have much to fear if their representatives really take a strong line in standing up to extreme opinion from British India, and I feel that the Government are building on a foundation of sand in expecting the Princes' representatives to form a stabilising element in the way that we would all like to see.

5.27 p.m.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: I associate myself entirely with what the Noble Lady has just said, and I wish to protest most strongly, not only on my own behalf but on behalf of a number of my friends, at the way in which this Clause and a great many other Clauses
have been justified to the Committee, not on their merits but by continued and persistent personal attacks on my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). This is not a personal matter. It is a matter far transcending any personalities, and it is beneath the proper function of a Government to belittle this immensely important question of the Government of India by this continuous baiting and attacking of my right hon. Friend, who has most consistently on this question, for four years past, represented a minority in this House and a majority in the country. I can only suppose that the Government are beginning to get rattled at the reception of the policy of the Bill in the country and in India. It is an old saying that when you have no case you abuse the plaintiff's attorney. I suppose that my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping may be considered one of the foremost advocates on our side in this matter. Therefore the Government abuse our attorney instead of dealing with the Bill.
What is this Clause? It is a Clause setting up a Federal Assembly in India. The Assembly is to consist of 156 representatives of British India and not exceeding 104 representatives of the States. The Secretary of State and other Members of the Government have again and again stated that this Assembly is an impossibility without the representatives of the States. In fact it never would have been thought of by the Government had not certain conversations taken place and certain statements been made by certain Princes at one of the Round Table Conferences. I protest that it is beneath the dignity of the House of Commons to pass this Clause setting up a Federal Assembly when we know that the States are not prepared to go into that Federal Assembly unless the provisions of the Bill relating to it are altogether altered.
Only the other day the Chancellor of the Chamber of Princes declared that the Federation sought to be imposed upon them and which was being "rushed through the British Parliament"—those are his words, not mine—without even waiting for their criticism, had nothing in common, except in name, with the scheme which in general outline they accepted at the first Round Table Conference. Is it not idle to go on saying that the Princes represent the funda-
mental basis of this institution, when the Chancellor of the Chamber of Princes himself declares that the Government proposals have nothing in common with the scheme which they accepted? He also said addressing his colleagues:
I appeal to you not merely as the Chancellor of the Chamber, which high office I hold by the suffrage of my brother Princes, hut also as the ruler of Patiala, to say in the most unequivocal terms that this Bill is utterly unsatisfactory and cannot be accepted.
The House of Commons is being put into an impossible position when this Committee is asked in view of such statements as that to pass a Clause setting up in India a Federation of which the Indian Princes are supposed to be not only an integral, but a necessary part. I could read other statements of the same kind. The Nawab of Bhopal said:
The present proposals do not meet our requirements and are wholly unacceptable.
The great Princes are not prepared to accept these proposals. We know that they are not prepared to come into this Federal Assembly, at any rate as the Bill is at present drawn. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will decline to pass a Clause which is unreal and has no meaning.

5.33 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The major objections to this Clause have been so well stated already that I shall not attempt to restate them. The Secretary of State chided the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) on the ground that the right hon. Gentleman was forgetting that we were setting up a Federal Assembly. I ventured to interrupt the Secretary of State, and to ask him whether he could point to any Federation elsewhere which was at all comparable with these proposals, but instead of pursuing his argument he said in effect, "Oh, no, but this relates to India." The purport of his comment was that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping had forgotten the principles of federation but when I asked him what those principles were, as illustrated in other countries, he said that had nothing to do with the matter because we were dealing with India.
I sought to put a further point to him by way of interruption but he said quite properly that he desired to continue his speech and it was quite right and I sup-
pose also quite convenient that he should have claimed that privilege at that time. The Secretary of State spoke as if it were necessary that there should be contact between the Federal Assembly and the Provincial Assemblies, but that is by no means generally the case in other federations. In the United States there is not the slightest connection between the House of Representatives and the lower Houses in the State Assemblies. I am not sure whether every State Assembly there has two chambers or not, but at any rate there is no connection of the kind indicated. The House of Representatives is elected by the people in the various States and not by the State Assemblies. The same is true of Australia and Canada and also, I think, of the modified form of federation in the Union of South Africa. In fact I do not think there is a single analogy to justify the retort of the Secretary of State to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping.
I wish to deal, however, with a point of practical electioneering. The Clause provides that the Federal Assembly is to run for five years or less, and elsewhere in the Bill it is provided that the Provincial Assemblies are to run for five years or less. When the system starts, one presumes that the newly-elected Provincial Assemblies, in so far as they are the electoral colleges for the creation of the Federal Assembly—they are not entirely so but they are partly so—will be reasonably fresh and will elect a Federal Assembly which we can call representative of the opinions of the provincial legislatures, these in turn being representative, as far as the franchise makes them representative, of the views of the electorate. That is at the outset. But after a few years there may be a dissolution say in Madras, for some reason or other—before the five year period has elapsed—and perhaps a dissolution in Bombay and the dates of the dissolutions in the different Provinces will be spread out so that there may be one or two provincial elections occurring every year.
Now we come to circumstances which call for the dissolution of the Federal Assembly, either on some special occasion or through the effluxion of time. The Provincial Assemblies will then proceed to elect a new Federal Assembly, but in
a large number of cases the people who will then elect the Federal Assembly will be people who no longer retain the confidence of the provincial electors. They will be people who at the next provincial election will lose their own seats. If we assume that responsible representative government in India is going to reveal the same symptoms as responsible representative government elsewhere, then we shall have that mysterious thing called the swing of the pendulum which is simply the measure of the fact that every party at one time or another disappoints the electors by giving rise to excessive hopes. In that case you are going to have an extraordinarily anomalous situation, and you are never going to have the kind of Federal Assembly which you ought to have, unless it is proposed to reinforce the Federal Assembly each time a provincial election takes place, that is to say, unless when a provincial election takes place, those who represent the Provincial Assembly on the Federal Assembly automatically cease to be members of the Federal Assembly, their successors being appointed after the provincial election has taken place.
I do not see in what sense this Federal Assembly can be responsive, in the way that every elected assembly ought to be in some degree responsive, to public opinion. This difficulty does not arise primarily out of indirect election, but out of the way in which indirect election is to be managed in this case. I am not discussing whether direct election or indirect election is right. I am only showing that under the system proposed we may create the most unresponsive assembly which it would be possible to conceive, and I hope that that point may yet be examined.

5.40 p.m.

Miss RATHBONE: I should not have spoken in this discussion at all had it not been for the fact that the preponderating part of the criticism on this Clause has come from a group in this Committee with whose opinions on this subject I am usually little in accord. I should not like it to go on record that the only section in the Committee which has objections to this Clause is that led by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). I see two grave objections to the Clause. The first is the extraordinarily reactionary
character of the proposed upper Chamber. Whatever may be the motives of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping—and the Secretary of State appeared to throw some doubts upon them—nobody can question the truth of what he said, that this Chamber is going to be one of the most plutocratic bodies the world has ever seen. It will be almost exclusively representative of great vested interests. There seems to be all the less justification for setting up that kind of second Chamber since the change in the method of election to the lower Chamber from direct to indirect. As it is, the lower Chamber itself will be a body very largely representative of vested interests and any sort of contact that it has with the poorer electors will be through the medium of the provincial assemblies. If there is to be that kind of lower Chamber I cannot see that the arguments which are usually employed to justify the sort of upper Chamber proposed here, can continue to have any weight.
The second objection is this. If there is to be this amazing kind of upper Chamber, why is it necessary to give the Princes the heavy representation which is given to them in the lower Chamber? I agree with the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville) who doubted whether British India would long stand a form of central legislature in which the representatives of the Princes are to be so numerous in both Chambers and are to be permitted to interfere in many affairs which affect the poor. We all know the range of legislation which this legislature may dominate, and it is difficult to believe that British India would long endure such interference as is possible by the representatives of the Princes with all these subjects, while the representatives of British India themselves are not permitted even to ask questions about the way in which these same subjects are being dealt with in the Princes' own States. The whole influence of the Princes seems to me to be far weightier than the facts justify and far weightier than is fair to British India. When the Joint Select Committee thought it necessary to change the mode of election from direct to indirect I wonder that they did not at the same time recognise that that change, whatever its merits, did away to a large extent with any necessity for the
kind of second Chamber which we are setting up under the Bill, or for such a large representation of the Princes in the lower Chamber.

5.44 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I wish to take the Committee to witness and also the larger public out of doors, that although for over two hours arguments have been used against this Clause from every quarter and every section of the Committee not the slightest attempt to answer any of those arguments has been made. The Secretary of State contented himself with the imputation of motives and with vague generalities. In no way did he attempt to meet the serious case, as I submit it will be found, which I unfolded upon this subject and which has been reinforced from almost every part of the Committee. Of course, when you have a majority of 200 gentlemen waiting in the Library and Smoking Rooms whom you can summon, you do not need, I suppose, to go into arguments and to deal with serious contentions when they are advanced. You merely call for your legions and invite them to perform what the Lord President of the Council once extolled as footwork—and so you move forward. At each stage of this weary process we shall endeavour to point out to the country at large that the ordinary processes of reason have ceased to operate on the side of those who are driving forward this policy and are simply relying on the remaining momentum and force of what I expect will be found to be a moribund majority.
I see that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) has returned, and I must refer to one note which he struck to which I must take exception. It was when he appeared to voice the opinion of a great many Members that I should not address the Committee so often or at such length. Let me say that any intolerance of that kind on his part would not at all facilitate the speed with which this Bill is being carried through. We had great hopes of making considerable advance to-day and to-morrow, and I should very much deprecate this perfervid supporter of the Government introducing an element of warmth and even of acrimony which has so far found only a feeble echo in the speeches of the Ministers themselves. There is one thing which
my right hon. Friend said for which I am very grateful to him. He referred to the length of my speech, which was only a quarter of an hour, and he warned me on that point. I can assure him that on any question where I might be in danger of boring the Committee I will gladly refer to him for his advice and assistance, for I cannot feel that one can possibly have a greater expert authority on such a subject.

5.49 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I have only two or three sentences to add to what I said earlier in the afternoon. I have no intention whatever, and I know that my right hon. Friend knows that that is the fact, of imputing any motives to anybody. What I did say, however, seemed to me to be a fair criticism of his speech, for he used a whole series of totally contradictory arguments all, however, with one objective, namely, an attack upon this Clause in particular and the Bill in general. To give a single instance: at one moment he was supporting the Statutory Commission and at another moment he was attacking indirect election with bell, book and candle. That is one of the many instances that seemed to pervade his speech this afternoon. As to the main issue upon this Clause, I hoped that on the Amendments that have been moved I had made my position and the position of the Government clear, and I do not want to repeat arguments which I have already used.
Let me, however, say once again that, apart from the question of direct or indirect election, there has been a very general agreement behind the structure of the Legislature set out in this Clause. For several years past we have discussed the question of one or two chambers, of the kind of chambers that they should be, and the number of members; and there is a general body of Indian agreement behind our proposals. That, I venture to think, is a solid answer to a good many criticisms that have been made. I do not think I need go into further details as to many of the other criticisms. In the course of this Debate speech after speech has cancelled many of them out. For instance, my right hon. Friend talked of us entrenching property and privilege. Then we had other speeches taking a diametrically opposite
line. We had my right hon. Friend taking the view that we were putting all sorts of excessive powers under the control of the Legislature, and then a right hon. Gentleman on the benches opposite said that it did not matter much because this Legislature would have very little power and would degenerate into nothing more than a ceremonial body. I was under the impression that arguments of that kind had been cancelled out time after time in our discussions. I have no intention of taking up the time of the Committee further this afternoon, but I did feel it necessary to make my position clear to my right hon. Friend on these two points.

5.51 p.m.

Mr. BERNAYS: Before we pass this Clause I should like to make clear my deep regret, in company with my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot), that it contains provisions for indirect election. I do not think that—

The CHAIRMAN: That has already been settled and cannot be discussed again.

Mr. BERNAYS: The hon. Member for Bodmin—

The CHAIRMAN: He made a reference to it, but it cannot be discussed now.

5.52 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: I would not have risen but for the speech of the hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) and the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) in which he indulged in pleasantries with the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery). When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping was a Minister we had exactly the same experience of knowing that a couple of hundred Members were hidden away and could come out and vote us down every time. All Oppositions have to face that, and I think it is rather stupid of the right hon. Gentleman to complain about it.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The right hon. Gentleman ought to be on the front Government Bench; why does he not go?

Mr. LANSBURY: Because I am a realist. I am not stupid enough to com-
plain as the right hon. Gentleman did. When my friends get there they will do just as effectively what the present Government are doing. While it may be true that some people have agreed to the proposals in Clause 18, we are most emphatically against them. We are against the Council of State, not because of indirect election or anything of that kind, but because we do not want this sort of Council of State to be set up. We also think it is an outrage on what is called the democratic Constitution which the Government are bestowing on India that they should give such enormous powers to the Princes. Those are the main reasons why we are voting against the Clause. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to infer that there was no difference of principle. There is a strong difference of principle between

ourselves and the Government concerning this Clause.

Mr. BERNAYS: On a point of Order. When the question of direct and indirect election was discussed last Wednesday, I was not present owing to illness. It appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT that I had voted for, the principle of indirect election. I was not here and had I been here I should have voted against it. I felt I ought to have the right to make that clear.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has had the opportunity of making his position clear, but it is beyond my power to enable him to make now the speech which he would have made then.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 273; Noes, 87.

Division No. 91.]
AYES.
[5.56 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Hammersley, Samuel S.


Albery, Irving James
Cook, Thomas A.
Hanbury, Cecil


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Cooper, A. Duff
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L,
Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)


Allen, William (Stoke. on-Trent)
Cranborne, Viscount
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Crooke, J. Smedley
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Assheton, Ralph
Cross, R. H.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Crossley, A. C.
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)


Bainiel, Lord
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B.(Portsm'th, C.)
Denville, Alfred
Holdsworth, Herbert


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Doran, Edward
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Duckworth, George A. V.
Hornby, Frank


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Horsbrugh, Florence


Bernays, Robert
Duggan, Hubert John
Howard, Tom Forrest


Blindell, James
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Borodale, Viscount.
Dunglass, Lord
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumlries)


Bossom, A. C.
Eady, George H.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Boulton, W. W.
Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Hutchison, W. D, (Essex, Romf'd)


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Elmley, Viscount
Janner, Barnett


Brass, Captain Sir William
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Jesson, Major Thomas E.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Fox, Sir Gifford
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)


Buchan, John
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Ker, J. Campbell


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Ganzoni, Sir John
Kirkpatrick, William M.


Butler, Richard Austen
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Knight, Holford


Cadogan, Hon Edward
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Leckie, J. A.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Gledhill, Gilbert
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Goff, Sir Park
Lewis, Oswald


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Goldie, Noel B.
Liddall, Walter s.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A.(Birm., W.)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Graves, Marjorie
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'. W.)
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Christie, James Archibald
Grigg, Sir Edward
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Clarke, Frank
Grimston, R. V.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Clarry, Reginald George
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)


McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Pybus, Sir John
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


McKie, John Hamilton
Radford, E. A.
Stones, James


Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Storey, Samuel


McLean, Major Sir Alan
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Stourton, Hon. John J.


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Ramsbotham, Herwaid
Strauss, Edward A.


Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Rankin, Robert
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Mallalieu. Edward Lancelot
Rea, Walter Russell
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Held, James S. C. (Stirling)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Martin, Thomas B.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Rickards, George William
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Ropner, Colonel L.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Milne, Charles
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Rothschild, James A. de
Tree, Ronald


Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Morgan, Robert H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Morrison, William Shepherd
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsand)


Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Salmon, Sir Isidore
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Munro, Patrick
Salt, Edward W.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour


Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
White, Henry Graham


Normand. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Wills, Willrld D.


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Orr Ewing, I. L.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Owen, Major Goronwy
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Womersley, Sir Walter


Palmer, Francis Noel
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Patrick, Colin M.
Smithers, Sir Waldron
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Peake, Osbert
Somervell, Sir Donald
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Pearson, William G.
Soper, Richard
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Petherick, M.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.



Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bllst'n)
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Pickharn, K. W. M.
Spens, William Patrick
Sir George Penny and Dr. Morris




Jones.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Atholl, Duchess of
Greene, William P. C.
Mainwaring, William Henry


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Banfield, John William
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Maxton, James


Batey, Joseph
Groves, Thomas E.
Milner, Major James


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Grundy, Thomas W.
Nicholson. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersfid)


Bracken, Brendan
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Nunn, William


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hartington, Marquess of
Parkinson, John Allen


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Hepworth, Joseph
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Buchanan, George
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Burnett, John George
Jenkins, Sir William
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Carver, Major William H.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Scone, Lord


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cleary, J. J.
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Somerset, Thomas


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Kimball, Lawrence
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Kirkwood, David
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.(P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Knox, Sir Alfred
Thorne, William James


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Tinker, John Joseph


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lawson, John James
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Critchley, Brig.-General A. C.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Wayland. Sir William A.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H,
Leonard, William
West, F. R.


Daggar, George
Levy, Thomas
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Davison, Sir William Henry
Lunn, William
Wilmot, John


Dixey, Arthur C. N.
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Wragg, Herbert


Donner, P. W.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)



Everard, W. Lindsay
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Fuller, Captain A. G.
McGovern, John
Mr. Bailey and Mr. Herbert William.

CLAUSE 19.—(Sessions of the Legislature, prorogation and dissolution.)

The CHAIRMAN: I have not selected any Amendments on this Clause or on the following Clauses down to and including Clause 24, and as there is no
Motion on the Order Paper to leave out any of these Clauses I propose to put them en bloc.

Clauses 19 to 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 25.—(Vacation of seats.)

6.6 p.m.

Mr. D. D. REID: I beg to move, in page 14, line 35, to leave out Subsection (3) and to insert:
(3) If for a continuous period of sixty days a member of either Chamber is absent from all meetings thereof except on account of illness or the service of the Crown without permission of that Chamber that Chamber may declare his seat vacant.
Provided that in computing the said continuous period of sixty days no account shall be taken of any period during which the Chamber is prorogued or adjourned."
This is little more than a drafting Amendment, and I hope the Minister will see his way to accept it. The Clause provides that:
If for sixty days a Member of either Chamber is, without permission of the Chamber, absent from all meetings thereof, the Chamber may declare his seat vacant.
It is not quite clear during what period the sixty days are to be computed, and whether a man can be absent one day and present another and the absent days are to be added together, or whether there has to be a period of continuous absence. The Amendment proposes to state definitely that there must be absence for a continuous period of sixty days, except on account of illness or the service of the Crown, without the permission of the Chamber before the seat is declared vacant, and also provides that no account should be taken during those sixty days of any period during which the Chamber is prorogued or adjourned.

6.8 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): On the point first mentioned by my hon. Friend, I think it would be quite clear to anyone who looked at the proviso that the period of sixty days would be construed as being continuous. Still, my hon. Friend's Amendment does make that point quite clear. It raises, however, a further point in excepting illness and absence owing to service of the Crown. My right hon. Friend definitely thinks there are points in this Amendment which should be considered, and, without giving any undertaking he will certainly agree to consider it, and, if necessary, move a form of words on the lines of the Amendment at a later stage. I hope in view of that statement that my hon. Friend will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. REID: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 26.—(Disqualifications for Membership.)

6.10 p.m.

Mr. D. D. REID: I beg to move, in page 15, line 10, to leave out paragraph (d).
I submit that this paragraph is very vague and that it is difficult to know what it is meant to do. I assume that it is designed to deal with any question of bribery or other matters such as come under the Corrupt Practices Act in this country, but instead of specifying the offences provision is made for defining offences by an Order in Council or an Act of the Federal Legislature. I suppose the provision as to the Order in Council has been inserted in case the Federal Legislature should think it better to have no legislation at all, and to leave every candidate a free hand. I feel that it would be better either to leave this paragraph out altogether or to put in some provision showing what the offences are to be which will disqualify a member.

6.11 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: This paragraph has to be in the Bill because the Bill is saying what persons shall be disqualified. It necessarily cannot be in a completely final and detailed form, because if abuses do appear the Federal Legislature has to pass fresh legislation creating fresh election offences, and therefore it is worded in such a form as to show that disqualification attaches to a person if he has been guilty of any offence relating to elections which has been declared by Order in Council or by an Act of the Federal Legislature to be an offence conviction whereof is a disqualification. The effect of leaving out the paragraph would be that offences directly related to elections would not be a disqualification, and we have to have in this Constitution a paragraph of this kind which will cover future legislation dealing with election offences. In view of that explanation, I hope that my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: I beg to move, in page 15, line 21, to leave out paragraph (e).

The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment on the Order Paper, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Chertsey (Sir A. Boyd-Carpenter), the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth (Sir R. Keyes), and the hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox)—in page 15, line 27, to leave out from "years," to "has," in line 29—is one which, I think, could be discussed on this Amendment, if they wish to do so, and they could have an opportunity of taking a Division on it afterwards.

Mr. LANSBURY: I do not know whether the other hon. Members will wish to discuss their Amendment, but I only wish to discuss the omission of paragraph (e). That paragraph says that a person shall be disqualified from being chosen as and for being a Member of either Chamber:
(e) if, whether before ox after the establishment of the Federation, he has been convicted of any other offence by a court in British India or in a State which is a Federated State and sentenced to transportation or to imprisonment for a period exceeding twelve months, unless a period of five years, or such less period as the Governor-General, acting in his discretion, may allow in any particular case, has elapsed since his release.
My hon. Friends who, with me, have put down this Amendment have chosen me and others to speak on this subject, because we are in the position that many of our people both in this country and in India have been and are likely to be in. There are, or there were, in India during our administration of affairs there, some tens of thousands of persons imprisoned for long periods and short periods, some without trial and others after trial. I am aware that this paragraph states that the person shall be disqualified if he has been convicted of
any other offence by a court in British India or in a State which is a Federated State.
I am not suggesting that if a person has not been brought to trial he would be disqualified, but this is not as easy a matter as some hon. Members might imagine. This House has witnessed men who have been sentenced and who have served terms of penal servitude. On
one occasion a Member of this House had been sentenced to death for high treason. No one who knew Michael Davitt who was sentenced to penal servitude, or who knew my good friend Colonel Lynch, would for a moment say that either of them should have been excluded from membership of this House or from standing for election.
In addition to that, there have been a very large number of men who have committed political offences. Most of the people who will be covered by this paragraph will be persons who have been in prison because of political offences; that is, they have offended either by speech, writing, public meeting or in some other way against the law. That has been the position of people in this country, certainly of Michael Davitt and Colonel Lynch. I take their cases because they are so thoroughly well known. No one would say that they had committed anything but political crime—if there is such a thing as political crime. In the case of the 33 Poplar councillors who went to prison—[An HON. MEMBER: "They should have left them there!"] Probably they should have left us there, but they sent me here instead, and they put me in the Government. I do not know which was worse. Some people do not get their deserts by going to prison and other people are sent there who ought not to be sent there.
The point I am making is that political offences are widespread in India just now, and have been for some years past. To have a paragraph like this saying that a large number of men and women shall be ineligible for election is dealing out to the Indians what I am quite sure would not be the law in this country. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Ireland?"] I should not think it was so in Ireland.
This House has had experience of that sort of Member. In the two cases I have mentioned the men were sentenced for what appeared to be terrible crimes, but when they came here they were recognised as good citizens whose only crime was that they were a little in advance of their time. We have now given Home Rule to Ireland. Michael Davitt wanted to abolish the land laws of Ireland, but it was left to a Tory Government under the late Mr. Wyndham practically to wipe them out. We bought them out, and the great row now is as
to who should pay for them. That is only by the way. What Michael Davitt agitated for became the law, and everybody recognised that it was right, but it did not happen to be recognised as right when he joined the Fenian movement. [An HON. MEMBER: "He was a dynamitard!"] No, he was sentenced to penal servitude long before the dynamitards. Michael Davitt was sentenced for what was then a crime but was afterwards accepted by all parties in this House as a rational proposition. Colonel Lynch wanted a South African Republic; I believe he fought for it, and then was put on his trial. A very short time afterwards, the Liberal Government of the day established the South African Federation as we know it now.
One can use the same argument in regard to those Indians who are now fighting for their national freedom. They sometimes do many things which people who have got old and respectable, like myself, think they ought not to do, but here is this House of Commons, with the assistance of the Minister, about to give them a constitution. The right hon. Gentleman wants reforms in the administration of affairs in India, and many of those men want to do the same thing. I am not arguing for assassination and that sort of thing and I do not want to be told that I am supporting it. I am not. I am supporting the proposition that men and women—there are women as well as men in this—who have been found guilty of offences against the law during the period before India has obtained self-government should not be debarred because of those offences from standing for election or sitting in the new Indian Parliament. There are thousands of women in this country who deliberately broke the law, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) knows quite well, and thousands of them are sent to prison, but none of us would say that they were guilty of the sort of crime that would prevent them, or ought to prevent them, from sitting in this Parliament, or in any other Parliament. I want the Indians to be treated in exactly the same way, and this paragraph taken out.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not often find myself the recipient of support from the right hon. Gentleman who leads the Oppo-
sition, who indeed hardly ever misses an opportunity of opposing me in the ordinary course of business. The Government should give us some explanation of the form in which they have cast this Clause. Prima facie it seems to affect two very large principles. The first is that a man who has served his sentence has purged his offence. If the offence has been a very grievous one the sentence will have been a very long one. There has always been a broad principle on which we have worked here that when the full time of servitude has been undergone, that is the end of the story. Just as a man is innocent until he is proved guilty, so, after he has satisfied the severe and dread demands of the law, he is cleared. That is a large principle, and I should like to hear from the Attorney-General or the Secretary of State why it is necessary to frame this Clause in a way to overset that principle.
Then there is the principle of the right of the elector to choose freely. It is true that in by-gone days, in Ireland and elsewhere, the electors have chosen men who have served terms of penal servitude for political offences or for grave offences connected with political agitation, and have sent them up to this House just because of what they had done. I am sure my right hon. Friend would not take so gloomy a view of the healing effects in India of his legislation as to suppose that anything like that will occur in these new legislative bodies. I am accused sometimes of taking a gloomy view, but that would strike a knell which would extinguish what little hopes I have. If he imagines that after those Indians have received the Constitution, are exercising all their rights of responsible government and have the whole of the advantages that are offered to them, they are going to pick out persons of criminal record and send them up to the legislature for the purpose of making a grimace at the British Government and the high authorities, and that that is a matter which requires to be so seriously legislated for, that is a revealing sidelight on the interior feeling of the Government as to the character and constitution of their legislation.
If the Government say that this is really necessary for the safety of India and to the efficiency of their institutions, and that otherwise they would be overrun by people from the Andaman Islands—there
will almost be a migration from those remote and, I am told, beautiful islands to the legislature at Delhi—and if they really think that the danger is so formidable, I should not feel justified in giving a vote in the Lobby against them. It occurs to me that a better way of dealing with the position—I throw out the suggestion—would be to attach loss of civic rights to a particular sentence, as is done in many other countries. Loss of civic rights for so many years is made part of the original sentence. That seems to be a way to avoid debasing this Act of deliberation with a Clause which has quite a clang of the authoritarian chain about it.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: The Committee would welcome from the Minister an explanation to show that we are not getting into difficulty in passing this paragraph. I agree with what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). This House has always insisted that the right of the elector should not be affected by the supposed offence of a man who has been brought under trial of the law. That was an essential principle during the struggles of John Wilkes, out of which struggle arose the establishment of a great deal of our Parliamentary and constitutional liberty. There must be many in India who have been brought into conflict with the law for the prosecution of what they believe to be their rightful aims. We hope under happier auspices and better conditions that many of them will be taking their share of the economic up-building of their country, when we have rid that country of sterile political controversies.
The Committee would like that assurance from the Minister, because prison itself is not a sinister bar. If we took into consideration those who would have been disqualified by the mere fact of imprisonment we should have to think of Mr. John Burns as well as of John Wilkes, Sir Robert Walpole, who was Prime Minister in this country, Sir John Eliot, whose statute I hope will one day be erected within the precincts of Parliament, John Hampden, and even the Apostle Paul. In these circumstances, seeing that sometimes to-day imprisonment is an honour rather than a mark of shame, I hope the Minister will give
the assurance, if this Amendment cannot be accepted, that at any rate the protest which has been made is one to which he will have regard.

6.30 p.m.

Sir REGINALD CRADDOCK: It will be remembered that the White Paper contains no provision for the exclusion of persons convicted of crimes of this kind. The question was considered by the Joint Select Committee, who decided by a vote that the law on that subject, which has existed for a considerable number of years, should be retained. It must be remembered, first of all, electors in India take quite a different view of these crimes from a British electorate, so that a man who had been committed of a disgraceful crime might, in the absence of a provision of this kind, be elected by an electorate in India.
The second point is that, in pursuance of what is called a political object, very dangerous and savage crimes are sometimes committed. For example, the terrorists are not always committing the crime of murder, but both they and other revolutionaries resort to a system of political dacoities for the purpose of raising money for their cause. In the course of these dacoities they torture people to get them to show where their property is, and very often tie up their hands in cotton wool, put kerosene on it, and make torches of them for the better lighting of the hut or house in which the dacoity is committed. Undoubtedly we have to make people of that kind ineligible for election, because in India the check of the electorate is not nearly so potent as it would be here.
One recognises, however, the kind of crime to which the Leader of the Opposition has referred, and for that purpose the period of disability does not extend to more than five years. It only deals with people who have been sentenced for a year or more, and the disability remains only for five years after that. Then in order to meet the kind of cases about which the right hon. Gentleman has spoken, the Governor-General, in his discretion, may in any particular case allow the disability to be removed in a lesser period. It seems to me that the Clause as drafted meets all the necessities of the case. It provides for those cases in which, naturally, desperate and dangerous criminals would not be
elected in this country, but might be elected in India. These are debarred from getting into the Legislature for a long period. It provides also for persons whose offences are of a minor nature, involving no real moral turpitude, and who can be exempted from this disability after such shorter period as the Governor-General may determine. That having been already the practice under the Morley-Minto and Montagu-Chelmsford constitutions, it seems to me that it might well be continued under the new Constitution, having regard to all the circumstances which distinguish India from England in this matter.
I can give one instance to show the kind of difference in feeling that there is. I was instrumental at one time in getting a man convicted of a very gross forgery. In order to deprive another man of a field, he forged a complete set of accounts, which were absolutely bogus, and that was followed by a forged bond. He was sentenced to seven years, and when he was released a year before that time, on account of good behaviour, a very respectable banker met him at the gaol gate and offered him a new appointment, though he had not known him before. That shows clearly that people in India do not take the view of these matters that is taken here, and therefore, I suggest that the Clause be left as it is.

6.36 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if at this stage I say a word or two regarding the Amendment. As to the history of the matter, I think that under the Morley-Minto reforms of 1909 there was a similar disqualification, but it was for life, though it could be removed by the Governor. At the time of the Act of 1919 and the Southborough Committee, the period was reduced to five years, but I think there was no dispensing power. By 1925 the dispensing power was introduced, and the Sub-section which the Amendment seeks to leave out perpetuates in effect the present position. As my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock) told the Committee, we are in this matter following the recommendation of the Joint Select Committee, who said they thought it would be unwise to abandon, as the White Paper proposed, this dis
qualification—which under the existing rules is subject to a dispensing power— on conviction for a criminal offence in volving a sentence of imprisonment exceeding one year. The right hon. Gentleman rather suggested that this was being imposed on India by an authoritarian exterior force, but that is not so; the statement gives quite a wrong impression. If one looks at the constitutions of the Dominions, one finds a similar provision in the British North America Act, in the Constitution of Australia, and in the South Africa Act. The South Africa Act imposes a disqualification for five years after the imprisonment has expired, and it provides a dispensing power, but only in the case of an amnesty or free pardon. Being limited in that way, it is rather less wide than the dispensing power proposed in the present Bill.

Miss RATHBONE: Is the minimum disqualifying period of imprisonment one year?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I did not want to complicate the matter with too much detail, so I said that there was a somewhat similar provision. The South Africa Act provides that a candidate shall be disqualified if at any time he has been convicted of any crime or offence for which he shall have been sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine for a term of not less than 12 months. Our own Local Government Act contains a somewhat similar provision with regard to candidates for election to local authorities. This is not something new in principle—

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it for a political crime?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I cannot deal with more than one thing at a time. It is something in the first place which carries on what is already the rule in India; and, secondly, it is not something which is to be found in this Bill and nowhere else, but is a provision similar to that which other Dominions, who in effect drew up their own constitutions, thought it wise to insert in those constitutions as a reasonable provision. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) asked if it was for a political crime. Under the words I have just read from the South Africa Act, it is not; it is at large. I think the Com-
mittee will realise that there is great difficulty in trying to draw any line by words, and, indeed, it is undesirable.
The right hon. Gentleman asked us to consider the case of a man who was sent to prison for something which clearly would not be' regarded by any sensible person as a disqualification for membership of the Legislative Assembly. That is provided for by giving the Governor-General a dispensing power, as is proposed in the Bill. It has been found to be, and I think the Committee will realise that it would be, difficult and undesirable to try to draw a line between the different types of crime. I admit at once that, as the right hon. Gentleman and other Speakers have said, a number of good men have been in prison, but, on the other hand, it will not be disputed that a number of very bad men go to prison, and there are others outside as well. We provide for that by giving the dispensing power which has been used in the past, and which is certainly intended to be used in proper cases.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) put two points. He said, first of all, that this challenges, or appears to challenge, the general principle that when a man has served his sentence he is free and it is all over, but I think that in a Clause of this kind one is considering a different point. It is not a question of placing a further punishment on the man for his crime; the question is whether or not it is a useful provision in a Constitution that those who have served a sentence of this sort should be disqualified for a period of five years unless the Governor-General decides otherwise.

Mr. CHURCHILL: A very large number of persons have been confined under the civil disobedience movement. There must have been 200,000 persons, or something like that, practically all political classes. Is it not so?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It would clearly depend upon the sentence. Undoubtedly they would be disqualified unless the dispensing power was used. I understand that it has been used.

Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the people who have been interned. Would they be affected?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: No. The right hon. Gentleman to put his question properly, referred to the people who served terms of imprisonment. That is that all the Clause deals with. Mere detention would not bring them within the Clause.

Mr. ATTLEE: Is it not a fact that under the ordinances to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) referred, we had numbers of people who were sentenced to more than a years imprisonment for simply leaving their houses and matters of that kind?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am told that the dispensing power has been freely used in the class of case to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I am trying to put the argument for the Clause in its proper perspective in a constitution of this kind. The second point which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping made was that this impinges on the right of a democratic electorate to choose whom they wish to elect. I agree at once, and the question before the Committee is whether it is wise in this constitution as in the South African, and, in slightly different terms, in the Canadian and Australian, to have a provision of this kind.

Mr. McGOVERN: Did you do it in the Irish Free State constitution?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I do not think we did. We are not anticipating an ugly rush from the Andaman Islands to the hustings throughout British India. This is a less ambitious Clause than that, but it is a Clause which may well be of use in preventing undesirable circumstances and incidents arising, and one to which existing governments in India attach some importance, and we do not believe that it will have the evil results which have been suggested.

6.48 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: There is an old saying that
A fellow-feeling makes one wondrous kind,
and the reason I rise to speak on this matter is that as an old lag I feel very keenly for those who are to be visited with this political disqualification in India. I am very much obliged to the
hon. and learned Gentleman—and I am sure that I speak for a very large class in this country—when he says that he regards very many of them as very good men very badly used. It is very kind of him to give that testimonial. But the point which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) made still stands. It has not been adequately controverted. He said that there are two points involved in this Clause. One is that once a person has been imprisoned he is presumed, anyhow, in this country, to have paid the penalty for his crime whatever it may have been. The second point is that the Clause involves an interference with the right of electors to determine who should represent them in their Parliament. Many Members who have already spoken on this matter have shown how this Clause, if it had been applied in this country, would have involved famous characters in our political history, and the same thing applies in India. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India knows that one of the first Ministers to operate the reforms in India was Sir Surendranath Bannerjee who was a leading agitator against the partition of Bengal. Although he had been in prison, he was in due time elevated to a position of great authority and of political leadership in his country. That is not the only instance. Many other similar and parallel instances could be cited to the Committee to show how a person who to-day may be regarded as following a somewhat criminal course of procedure may to-morrow be elevated to the position of great government trust. There are many instances which can be stated in our own country in recent years of the operation of that same fact.
This proposal is very stupid on two grounds. I remember that this very disqualification was applied to me. I took a certain line in respect to the late War for which I paid the penalty, as it is said, but in addition to that I was mulcted in the penalty that I should not for a period of five years exercise the right of an elector, and yet I was returned as a Member of this House before the five years disqualification had been exhausted. It is an extremely difficult thing to apply a proposal of this sort. You have to keep very close touch with each of the individuals who are so dis
qualified. I do not mind saying now that I was able to evade the disqualification. I became an elector very quickly. But here you have an electorate of millions of people and you have to keep a very close record of the tens of thousands, or perhaps more, who are scattered all over India. How can you possibly do it? If they move from the area where they originally lived to some other area, how can you be sure that their names do not get on the register? What is the good of passing legislation like this?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): I think that the hon. Gentleman is misunderstanding the purport of the Amendment. It does not affect the electors, but the elected.

Mr. JONES: That is quite true. Perhaps I strayed a little too far, and I will abandon the argument on that point. Let me take the other point. It is foolish because it is very difficult to keep a man out, and it is also foolish because we ought not to attempt to keep him out, and for this reason. Let us remember that there are undoubtedly tens of thousands who participated in the civil disobedience campaign in India who will be affected by this Clause and precluded from election to Parliament. Who are these people? They are, in the main, young Indians. They are young people who might have been misguided but who believed very intensely that they were, according to their lights, serving their country. I know that the law can say to-day that this shall be done and that shall not be done, but there comes a time when individual citizens of the State have to determine for themselves whether they ought even to obey the law. I recall these lines, I forget who wrote them, but they run something like this:
We owe allegiance to the State but truer, deeper more
To the consciousness which God hath within our spirit's core.
Our country claims are fealty. We grant it so. But then
Ere man made us citizens, great Nature made us men.
I think it is something like that which implies the feeling that they must serve their people whatever the law says. That has governed and dominated the minds of these people. They are not vicious people by nature or by intent, but they have felt that the condition of their coun-
try demanded, temporarily anyway, that they should set the laws of their country at defiance. They are young people, and if their enthusiasm and their deep feeling were properly directed on behalf of the country and for the help of the State, they would prove to be people of tremendous worth to the community to which they belong. If you adhere to this particular Clause, not only will you find it hard to apply in practice, but if you apply it in practice you will only alienate that large body of young people, who, in the condition of the new constitution, ought to be summoned to the aid of the new Indian Government. It may sound a comical thing to many people, but the Government need not create new difficulties, as there will be plenty of difficulties in any case. If they can only summon to their aid and mobilise this wonderful feeling of good will in the country which these young people, mistakenly perhaps, have shown in other ways, I think that the Government will do well to do so.
There were tens of thousands of young people involved in the civil disobedience movement. Some of the offences were very small, and to us seemed paltry. If the Courts which presided over those cases had known that there was a possibility of these young people being disqualified in the sense of this Clause, the chances might have been that the sentences would have been deliberately below 12 months so as not to disqualify them from the function we are discussing. I think that the Government are blundering unnecessarily at this point, and adhering to something which they might easily overlook. They should start with a clean slate as far as possible. They should draw the sponge over these dreadful records of the past and let these young people begin in an atmosphere of good will towards the new constitution which we are now forging in this country. For that reason I support the Amendment.

6.54 p.m.

Miss RATHBONE: I want to appeal to the Secretary of State and to ask him whether, if he feels it necessary to have a Clause of this sort, he can at least make a longer disqualifying sentence than 12 months. My hon. colleague the Member for the Combined English Universities (Sir R. Craddock) spoke of disgraceful crimes, which, he said, ought to
disqualify the persons concerned. We shall all, perhaps, agree that such crimes should disqualify a man from being a member of a legislative assembly, but surely crimes of that sort usually receive a severer penalty than one year. The objectionable feature about this particular period is that it is just the period that may very well catch a large number of people of the kind to whom some of the previous speakers have alluded—people who have not committed any disgraceful offences, but are definitely political offenders and who, because they are political offenders, may be too proud to appeal for a special privilege from the Governor-General.
Three years ago I was in India at the time when the ordinances were being operated on a very wide scale and there were at that time an immense number of cases of this sort. A man or woman might be put under preventive detention for a period of two months. After the lapse of two months he would be released on the understanding that he reported to the police about every 24 hours. There were cases, however, where, if a man did not report almost within two hours of being released, he might be brought before the courts and receive a further sentence of six, or even 12 months, with the addition of a fine, which, if not paid, would result in a further period of three months imprisonment. I should like to know the number of people who would have been affected, if the new constitution had come into effect three years ago, as compared with to-day. Let us suppose—I hope it will never happen—there is a recrudescence of the civil disobedience movement followed by drastic measures. Do the Government really think it desirable that all people who committed political offences should be disqualified? I doubt if the effects of such action would be desirable. I should think they would want to get the flamboyant politicians into harness, into the regular stream of political life, where they would be more likely to give up their career of militancy. I would ask the Secretary of State whether he could not seriously consider, before reaching the Report stage, making this Clause a little less drastic, making the period two, three or five years, so that only the really serious offenders would be affected and that the minor offenders,
who might include political offenders at a time of political excitement, would not be included.

7.3 p.m.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: I should like to make one suggestion. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider dealing with a particular section of individuals for exemption? Would it not be advisable to extend the exemptions to all cases of political offences, rather than exercising exemption in the case of particular individuals? This would not get over all the objections to this Clause, but it would make it less objectionable if it did not apply to individuals chosen as individuals, but generally to certain types of political offences. Then all people guilty of such an offence would be freed automatically without having to go before the Governor-General.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I want to support the rejection of this Clause. We are here giving a new constitution to India, granting it the benefit of our experience. The experience of this House is unique in dealing generously with people and peoples with whom we have formerly differed. For example, there was the suffragist movement when women were sent to prison and were considered outcasts. I remember two women horsewhipping the then Prime Minister, Mr. Asquith. I remember their being put in gaol. All manner of things were thrown at them and they were called all manner of names, and the people of this country believed they were these things. Yet we live to see no less a personage than the Lord President of the Council unveiling a statue to Mrs. Pankhurst, who in her day and generation was an outcast. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) was at one time jeered at. I myself have been not only jeered at hut deported during the War, and that was no laughing matter. It was considered at that time that we ought to be put away, and that by people who thought better of it afterwards and sent us here.
The Solicitor-General mentioned South Africa. I interrupted him purposely because I wished to arouse the attention of the Committee with regard to South Africa. I am anxious that we should deal with our fellows in India just as
generously and as intelligently as we deal with ourselves. I ask that we should treat the Indians just as generously as we treated the South Africans. In 1928 it was my privilege to be one of a delegation from this House to be the guests of the Canadian Government, along with representatives from every Parliament in the British Empire. On that occasion there were a number of delegates from South Africa and one, who was a member of the South African Parliament, had lost his leg fighting against us in the Boer War. One of the most outstanding statesmen in the world to-day, whose name is continually trotted across the Floor of the House, who is one of the most respected men in the British Empire, took arms against the British Empire—General Smuts. He was quite right. Is there any man who regrets the granting of those powers to give them the right to become part of the British Empire? Yet here we are putting strictures in this Clause on men and women of hardihood who have risen from a race that has been crushed.
What is the history of India? I have not been in India. Many of my colleagues have been there. Everyone knows the awful conditions under which the majority of the Indian peasants live, move and have their being, even under the British regime. From them have risen men and women who knew that if they took a certain line of action they stood the chance of being imprisoned, of being thrown into gaol, or being deported, as I was. None of these individuals is a bad man or woman. They were actuated with the highest sentiments that enter the human mind, sacrificing themselves on behalf of their fellows. It is not true to say that only a few individuals will be affected: there is an army who will be affected. The Secretary of State has granted me more concessions for Communists in India than I have ever obtained from any other Secretary of State during my service in this House in the last 14 years, even more than I got from the Labour Secretary of State for India. Therefore, I appeal to him, for there is nothing he need regret in what he did; I appeal to his sense of fairness on behalf of the individuals who will be affected by this Clause. I ask him now to be courageous, and to extend to Indians the right hand of friendship and to trust them. We are
strong enough. A great, powerful Empire like the British Empire can afford at this moment to act in a generous fashion towards those individuals who will be implicated.
Will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw or modify this proposal in such a way as to ensure that individuals, irrespective of what they may have done, will receive fair treatment? It is no use trying to understand the history of the past few years, unless we benefit by the mistakes of those who have gone before. That is the only service of history to us to-day. The history of the political life of this country during the War and immediately following it places the Secretary of State in a position to know the people with whom he differed seriously and at one time thought a menace to the country. The fundamentals are here. This is a concession. This is what they have been fighting for. This is what they were prepared to die for. Let it be demonstrated to the Indians that Britain is in earnest, that this House intends, and that the Secretary of State for India intends to make it easier for the poor people of India to do right, whereas formerly it has been so easy for them to do wrong.

7.15 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I thank the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) for his tribute to myself and, much more important, for his tribute to this very excellent Bill. I, like every hon. Member, approach this question with a good deal of prejudice against these types of disqualifications. We have grown up in a different atmosphere. We do not like these disqualifications. Here in England we have come to think, and rightly so, that on the whole such disqualifications would have been unnecessary in our position. In many cases they would have been mistaken if they had been applied. What a calamity, for instance, it would have been if for a term of years the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) had been debarred from the service of this House. What a calamity it would have been if there had been a series of other exclusions of the great men whose names have been quoted in our Debate this afternoon. We all approach this question from that point of view. Here these disqualifications
would be unnecessary. In actual fact they could be proved to be wrong.
Let the Committee for a moment think equally impartially about the position in India. I do not want to state the case too high. I want rather to put it before the Committee and to leave them to judge of the actual facts. In India, as in the case of other Dominions, a disqualification of this kind has been found to be necessary. In India, unlike the case of the other Dominions, the dispensing power has been very freely used. I will take, as an instance, and it is the best instance that I can give, the use of the dispensing power before the last election for the Indian Legislature. The election came at the end of a period in which many thousands of men and women had been convicted for civil disobedience offences. The dispensing power was used, I think I am right in saying, in all cases in which there had been no conviction for incitement to violence. The use of the dispensing power in actual practice was particularly noteworthy. If hon. Members will look at the present constitution of the Assembly they will find that practically every member of the Congress Party who has been returned as a result of the last election had the dispensing power given in his favour and was free to stand. I make that point to show that the dispensing power has been used in such a way as to prevent the exclusion of the kind of people who have been so much in the minds of hon. Members this afternoon.
I was myself in some doubt as to the necessity for a disqualification of this kind. The Government did not insert it in the White Paper proposals. The proposal was inserted during the discussion in the Joint Select Committee, and I made it my business, upon the request of the Joint Select Committee, to inquire the views of the Government of India and of the Provincial Governments. I found that, without exception, they were all strongly in favour of a disqualification of this kind remaining, provided that there also remained the dispensing power. Particularly did I find the Government of Bengal very definite upon the question. We have been assuming in the discussion this afternoon that we are dealing with the activities, misguided it may be, of
none the less sincere people whom none of us really wish to be excluded from the Indian Assembly. But do not let us ignore the blacker side of the picture. Not the civil disobedience agitation, not the people who have been guilty of little more than political agitation, but the really dangerous terrorists with whom we have been fighting and are fighting a very grave battle in Bengal, as a result of whose activities not only our own fellow countrymen but also Indian members of the Services have been and in some eases are in great danger.
The Government of Bengal, faced on the spot with that grim danger, took the view that a disqualification of some kind is necessary, or you may have, in view of the kind of emotional excitement that is apt from time to time to spread over people, some of these dangerous terrorists, after the expiration of their sentences, standing and using their candidature—this is a point made by the Government of Bengal—for the purpose of spreading terrorist propaganda, and then possibly being returned to the Bengal council. I believe that that kind of thing could never happen here, but it is the kind of thing that might well happen, in view of the highly emotional atmosphere, in Bengal. On that account I am loath to disregard the serious warning given to me by the Government of Bengal against withdrawing a disqualification of this kind. I have, however, been impressed in the course of the Debate by the appeal that has been made to me by various Members of the Committee, by the hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) and by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs, to draw a distinction, if a distinction can be drawn, between the class of people whom I think we all wish to admit to the Indian Legislature, namely, the political agitator who, from the point of view from which we have been discussing the question, is not a danger to the State; to draw a distinction between that class of person and the dangerous criminal class to whom I have just referred.
In view of what has been said I will look again into the question to see whether we can make the dispensing power attached to the disqualification apply to classes rather than to individuals and whether we can safely make a change
in the length of time, namely, 12 months sentence, which is the disqualifying period. I cannot give that undertaking without saying at the same time that I must consult again the Government of India and the Government of Bengal, but I give the undertaking, subject to what they say, that I will give the question sympathetic consideration.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I have been very much impressed with the words that last fell from the right hon. Gentleman. I understand that he does not commit himself finally except to an examination of the matter. On that understanding I should like, on behalf of my hon. Friends, to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, also on the understanding that we reserve to ourselves the right to examine any new proposals which the right hon. Gentleman may feel able to submit when we come to the Report stage.

7.27 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think it has been a very good thing that we have explored this question. I raised my aspect of the matter for the purpose of eliciting from the Government a statement on the situation, but I little expected that the consequence of that would be the very grave offer and admission to which the Secretary of State has just given expression. When I spoke in perhaps a jocular manner of persons returning from the Andaman Islands to the Indian Parliament, I little thought that my right hon. Friend, in terms of the gravity of which the Committee must have felt immediately conscious, would have told us that there is real danger of dangerous terrorists, persons engaged in the gravest forms of terrorism, standing for the Legislature of Bengal in particular and being elected for the Bengal Assembly, unless this bar is put in their path. Be it observed that it is indirect election that we are talking about. Therefore, it is not a question of—I think the right hon. Gentleman said—mass emotion sweeping a constituency and influencing poor and more or less ignorant electors. These dangerous terrorists—the importance of the admission must not be lost sight of in the country—guilty of the worst of crimes, will be likely to be elected in Bengal by the Provincial Legislature of Bengal and sent to the
Federal Assembly from that Legislature. That is the admission that has now been put before us. [HON. MEMBERS: "He did not say that!"] If I am wrong I shall be delighted to be corrected.

Sir S. HOARE: I was arguing the question on general lines. This Clause trenches on the provincial chapter as well as the federal chapter. In my argument I may have been arguing the provincial ease more than the federal case and I should certainly say that it is to me almost inconceivable that a terrorist could be returned by indirect election in any Province. But I equally say that if the disqualification remains in the federal part of the Bill it is difficult to remove it from the provincial part.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The right hon. Gentleman wants to have it both ways. But the fact remains that he was dealing with the federal part, and the federal part is the only one which it is in order to discuss on this Clause. We all heard what he said clear and plain, that but for this bar dangerous terrorists would be chosen for the Federal Legislature by the Provincial Legislature of Bengal. That is a most grave and serious admission, and after such a statement I cannot support the Clause. If it is a fact that under this constitution the Provincial Legislature of Bengal may select dangerous terrorists and send them to the Federal Legislature then all I can say is that I hope this will be noticed by people outside these doors.

7.32 p.m.

Mr. McGOVERN: I have listened with interest to what the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) has had to say. He was a great antagonist of alleged terrorists in Ireland, but, nevertheless, he went down and met these alleged terrorists and handed them over a constitution which gave them the right to become members of the legislature in the Irish Free State, and also the right to run the finances of the country. I know it must be expected that there will be these tremendous contradictions when men are in or out of office. I am rather surprised at the attitude of the Government. I can quite understand them looking with loathing upon anything in the nature of assassination and murder. I have no love for crimes of that descrip-
tion; and political assassinations, whenever they take place in whatever civilised society, should not be tolerated by any constitutional government. In this case the Government are attempting to prevent those who have probably been some of the most active elements in India during the political struggle for a constitution and the right to run their own country, being elected to the legislature. Because men have been guilty of political crime it does not mean that under a constitution of their own they would not be quite' good citizens and capable men. Men who have taken a leading part in agitation and seditious utterances are on occasions likely to be thrown by the mass of the people into positions simply because of the attitude they have adopted towards the government of the time.
I remember reading in connection with a history of the Russian revolution that Lenin himself was compelled to warn people that they must not continually send men into the Soviet whose only ability and qualification was that they had been imprisoned for agitating for a socialist and communist state. He said that because a man is a good rebel and agitator it did not necessarily mean that he was a capable administrator, and he told the people that a man must be elected because of his ability as an administrator, not because of his ability as a rebel. That is good logic, and I agree with it. But the Government have pursued a policy in Great Britain which is diametrically opposed to the line they have taken in India. The Noble Lord the right hon. Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) said the other day that at one time we treated the rebels, the trade union leaders and agitators, with odium, we ostracised them, but that we had now changed that policy and were inviting them to have a cup of tea and take part in our discussions. The Secretary of State will agree, I think, that the policy of the cup of tea has been eminently successful in this country. And in India such a policy would be helpful. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) said that he was an old lag and had endured imprisonement during the War. I think the Secretary of State will agree that it would have been a disaster if we had been deprived of his company, advice and co-operation during the last four or five years.
Incidentally, the hon. Member for Caerphilly, who was debarred from service in this House through exercising the conscience clause, was a member of the Government who imprisoned Indians in India because they also exercised the conscience clause. These people have a right to consideration. There are many people in India to-day imprisoned as rebels or administrators who may be the future statesmen of the country. We have to take stock in this case, just as we did in the case of Ireland. If you deny a people the right to run their own country you drive them into underground channels, you make rebels of them against the Empire which controls their country. These agitators in India are mainly responsible for the Bill, and you are going to say that although they have taken part in the development of political consciousness in India they are to be penalised because we cannot envisage the time when India will be handed a constitution. The Government have quite enough security. They have put this constitution through a very fine mesh, and made it so that no real proletariat in India will be able to get into these assemblies. They are determined to prevent those who have gone to prison for political crimes having a part in the administration. If these men and women are capable of taking their part in these institutions the Government have no right to penalise them because they have taken part in agitation. The right hon. Member for Epping met the late Michael Collins, who everybody agrees was responsible for taking a gun in order to force the Government of this country to grant Ireland a constitution.
If there were no parliamentary institutions in this country but a complete dictatorship, the Secretary of State and the Attorney-General are just the types of people who would be most active in the revolutionary forces and would be prepared to use the gun in order to force a constitution on the country. In India, if the Government were wise, they would concede to them not only the right to rule themselves, but would say that they were going to invite the rebels and the terrorists of the past into the councils of the nation. They would say to them, "Give us the benefit of your knowledge and administrative ability. We will admit you, and probably at some future date you will be decorated by the King
Emperor." That is what I should say if I were an intelligent Conservative, and I agree that there are intelligent Conservatives in this country. There is the right hon. Member for Clay Cross (Mr. A. Henderson) at the Disarmament Conference. He is a Member of the Opposition, and there is the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), who spent 12 months in prison for seditious utterances during the War. No one will say that the wisdom and agitation of the hon. Member for Bridgeton is not desirable in a working-class movement. I am amazed at the attitude of the Government which is supposed to be intelligently led. It is led by a man—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now getting very wide of the Amendment.

Mr. McGOVERN: I was only going to say that it was led by a man who may have been imprisoned during the War for utterances which he made. Many men went to prison for more moderate utterances than those which the Leader of the Government made during the War. The policy of the Government is absolutely wrong. They should pursue the policy of the cup of tea. Invite the rebels into the drawing room, treat them good and well, give them their place in the constitution, wean them from their rebel attitude and make statesmen of them. By doing so the Government would be doing the wisest thing from the point of view of India and the British Empire.

7.44 p.m

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: I hope that the Secretary of State will not weaken on this Clause. The hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) will no doubt consider me as a not intelligent Tory, and I shall be proud if he does so. I consider that he does not know anything of the conditions in India. Any chance that the Bill has of being successful will be utterly wrecked if you allow people who have served 12 months in prison to be sent to the legislature. The Secretary of State has said that under the present Federal system dispensing power had to be exercised in the case of all the members who were returned by the Congress party. Look at the result. You have Government Measures continually being turned down by the present Legislative Assembly, and I suppose that when you get this Bill working, you will
want some system of peace and good will. If people in India are imprisoned for 12 months, it is for some good reason, and we do not want them to represent their country in Parliament. I sincerely hope the right hon. Gentleman will not weaken on this Clause. If he does, we promise him the most strenuous opposition in this respect.

Sir S. CRIPPS: As the Committee did not wish this Amendment to be withdrawn, and it will, therefore, be put to the vote, we shall, of course, support the deletion of the Clause.

7.46 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: This is only the second time that I have intervened in these Indian Debates, and I rise merely to reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox). What are the facts about men who get imprisoned? The dangerous men, as a matter of fact, never get sent to prison. Let me put the case of the general strike and look at the facts. During the general strike many men were sent to prison, but it was not the men who led the strike. In 99 out of every 100 cases—and this applies in India as well as in Britain—it is the simpletons who get sent to gaol, the mugs, and that is the fact. Nothing annoyed me more than this. I remember during the general strike, after the strike was over, you deprived every man who was active in the strike of his office as a justice of the peace, and it was impossible for him to sit on the bench, but the same week as you did that the leaders of the strike were invited by the Government to go to Buckingham Palace, and they met everyone there. The poor lost their seats on the bench, but the leaders went to Buckingham Palace. That is what happens always, and here you strike a penal Clause at the innocent and the simpletons who get sent to prison. That is the first point that I want to make. The second is—

Mr. WISE: Does the hon. Member then want to get the simpletons into the Legislative Assembly?

Mr. BUCHANAN: No, but I want to secure the right of people to be in it if the folk who elect them wish them to be in it. I am a simpleton in this House, and may I say to my Labour friends that I find difficulty in following them in this matter. They plead for the right of free election in India, but I often wish they would extend it to this country. It may be a personal grievance, but there is nevertheless reason to state it. To-day I am deprived of being a trade union Member of Parliament, and—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is getting rather far from the Amendment.

Mr. BUCHANAN: That may be, but you can draw the analogy that they too practise disqualification. I am for free election, and I say that every time you put in any kind of impediment, your impediment never does what you set out to do. Generally speaking it puts out the wrong person, and it is no guarantee against the person at whom you are aiming. I say that you are going in for free election or semi-free election. In certain Chambers it is direct and in others it is indirect, but in this part of the Bill we are discussing indirect election, and I say that inasmuch as you have agreed to do that, please allow anybody at all to stand. I hope, Captain Bourne, you will not stop me from saying that the terrorist is very like the street bookmaker, who does not make the book himself but tells someone else to do it for him, and the so-called terrorist here simply sets up another person to do his work and does not get sent to gaol himself. He puts his nominee there, his other person, the person who may just do it for him under a nom de plume. Therefore, your Clause will do nothing at all useful, and I trust the Government will give absolutely free election in these matters and will disqualify no one merely because he has been in prison.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'or' in line 27, stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 270; Noes, 36.

Division No. 92.]
AYES.
[7.54 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Aske, Sir Robert William


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Assheton, Ralph


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Atholl, Duchess of


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Bailey, Eric Alfred George


Albery, Irving James
Apsley, Lord
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Patrick, Colin M.


Balniel, Lord
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'. W.)
Peake, Osbert


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Grigg, Sir Edward
Pearson, William G.


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Grimston, R. V.
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th. C.)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Petherick, M.


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Pownail, Sir Assheton


Bernays, Robert
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Pybus, Sir John


Blindell, James
Harris, Sir Percy
Radford, E. A.


Boulton, W. W.
Hartington, Marquess of
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Ramsbotham, Herwaid


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Brass, Captain Sir William
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Rea, Walter Russell


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Brown. Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Hepworth, Joseph
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Rickards, George William


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Browne, Captain A. C.
Holdsworth, Herbert
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hornby, Frank
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward


Burnett, John George
Horsbrugh, Florence
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Butler, Richard Austen
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Carver, Major William H.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Salt, Edward W.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)
Samuel. Sir Arthur Michael (F'nhsm)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Scone, Lord


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Selley, Harry R.


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Christie, James Archibald
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Clarry, Reginald George
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Shute, Colonel Sir John


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dlne. C.)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Ker, J. Campbell
Smithers, Sir Waldron


Colfox, Major William Philip
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Somervell, Sir Donald


Cook, Thomas A.
Kimball, Lawrence
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Cooke, Douglas
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Soper, Richard


Cooper, A. Duff
Knox, Sir Alfred
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Spens, William Patrick


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Leckie, J. A.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)


Cranborne, Viscount
Leech, Dr. J. w.
Steel-Maltland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Craven-Ellis, William
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Stones, James


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Stourton. Hon. John J.


Crooke, J. Smedley
Lewis, Oswald
Strauss, Edward A.


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Liddall, Walter S.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Summersby, Charles H.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lleweilln, Major John J.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Cross, R. H.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Crossley, A. C.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Templeton, William P.


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Thompson. Sir Luke


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Davison, Sir William Henry
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (lnverness)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Denville, Alfred
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Todd. A. L. S. (Kingewinford)


Donner, P. W.
McKie, John Hamilton
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Doran, Edward
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Train, John


Duckworth, George A. V.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Tree, Ronald


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington. N.)
Manningham-Builer, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Dunglass, Lord
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R
Turton, Robert Hugh


Eady, George H.
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon. N.)
Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)


Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsand)


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Wayland, Sir William A.


Erskine-Bolst, Capt C. C. (Blackpool)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Morrison, William Shepherd
White, Henry Graham


Everard, W. Lindsay
Munro, Patrick
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Nail, Sir Joseph
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Fox, Sir Gifford
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Wilson. Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Wise, Alfred R.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Peters'fld)
Womersley, Sir Walter


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie [Banff]


Gilmour. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Nunn, William
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Gledhill, Gilbert
O'Connor. Terence James
Wragg, Herbert


Goff, Sir Park
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William Q. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Greene, William P. C.
Orr Ewing, I. L.



Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Palmer, Francis Noel
Sir George Penny and Dr. Morris




Jones.




NOES.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Milner, Major James


Banfield, John William
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Nathan, Major H. L.


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
Parkinson, John Allen


Buchanan, George
Jenkins, Sir William
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cleary, J. J.
Kirkwood, David
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lawson, John James
Thorne, William James


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Logan, David Gilbert
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar, George
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
McGovern, John
Williams, Thomas (York. Don Valley)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)



Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Mainwaring, William Henry
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Maxton, James
Mr. Groves and Mr. G. Macdonald.


Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

8.0 p.m.

Mr. M OLSON: I would like to ask the Secretary of State whether there is anything which prevents someone being at the same time a member of a provincial council and of the Federal Legislature. I think it is extremely desirable that people with experience of provincial problems should be able to sit and put in the Federal Assembly the point of view of their province. I think that it is the intention of the Government that it shall be possible for a man to sit in both Legislatures?

8.1 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: Both the Committee and the Bill have left the question open. There is no disqualification against a member of a provincial council sitting in the Federal Legislature, although my hon. Friend will at once see that there will be difficulties as to time and space and so on in his way. The Committee left it open, and we have left it open in the Bill.

Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 28.—(Privileges, etc. of Members.)

8.4 p.m.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: I beg to move, in page 16, line 23, after "proceedings," to insert:
except in respect of incitement to treason, mutiny, murder, arson, riot, sedition, and civil disobedience.
I think that if we are putting this democratic constitution on Indians, who are not accustomed to it, it does not necessarily follow that all the privileges we can enjoy in this House are what they want or what is best to carry on the Legislature there. We have to take account of our own character in a
Northern climate and of the Indian character in a hotter climate, and we must admit that East is East and West is West, and that in those hotter climates the people are much more likely to see red, and the effect of that is much more serious than it is over here. Crimes of incitement to murder, arson and riot are not looked on in India as they are here. I have seen a man condemned to three years' imprisonment for killing another man in Kashmir, while next door to him there was a man who got 13 years' imprisonment for killing a cow. These crimes are much more common and dangerous and have a more far-reaching effect, and they have spread like a veldt fire among the people.
We open the door to terrorists and others to get into this Assembly, and we saw from the experiences in 1931, when Congress incited to treason and riot, what a serious question it became. There are numerous examples. My second point is that the members of the Assembly itself, a young Assembly, will be anxious to be protected from firebrands. They may be terrorised in the House itself, a young House, with curious and very energetic speeches, and they may be afraid even for themselves and of what may happen to them at home if they disagree with some firebrand. They may get into the same way themselves, and not argue as we do in a calm atmosphere, but carry things to extremes. Indians have not shown very much strength of mind in having to deal with difficult situations which may arise as the result of firebrands. The Speaker would like some language in this Bill which would enable him to warn a member that he may be held responsible for treasonable utterances which will incite the mob to riot. It is because I think that it would be a protection for the Indian members themselves who would desire to start in a proper debating style that I move my Amendment. The more
one knows and reads the history of India the more one sees that it is likely to be a very riotous assembly unless certain protection is given in the way of not giving them all the privileges that we have.

8.9 p.m.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: I rise only for one moment to support the Amendment that has been proposed by my hon. and gallant Friend with his knowledge of India. I do hope the Government will consider this Amendment favourably and accept it, because whatever our views may be with regard to the reforms, the one thing which above everything else we want to see is that the Government of India is of a peaceful character and that it is orderly. Everybody is aware that nothing that we can do in this Bill, in these reforms, in any way can mitigate for a long period of time the intense feeling there is between the various communal sections of the people of India, and it is an undoubted fact that if you once allow the propagations of ideas in Parliament where you get intense divisions of opinion upon religious issues particularly, you will turn your Indian Parliament right from its inception into a perfect bear garden. I would only remind the Committee very briefly that at the time of the Cawnpore massacre some 2,000 people suffered death simply because the Hindus proclaimed a hartal, which meant the cessation of all business, in order that they might protest against the execution of the murderer of a British administrator at Lahore. When you can see that happening, that extraordinary feeling which is created, involving that massed murder, it must be clear that if we are really to see parliamentary institutions developed upon the kind of lines we hope for in this country, we must do everything in our power to eliminate the kind of in-cendiarist speeches which we would never dream of in this country, but which you would get in India with one man calling upon his colleagues to demand certain measures. I believe that in the interests of the kind of constitutional government the Government desire to see in India it would be wise to accept this Amendment.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: The question of religion would not be covered by this
Amendment at all. This Amendment would not affect it in any way whatever.

Sir H. CROFT: What I meant was that you may get a sudden incitement to riot or to arson or murder. It has happened again and again, and the only reason that I mentioned religion was because religion was uppermost. I had a letter from the late head of the whole of the orthodox Hindus just before his death in which he told me that this Measure must inevitably lead to strife and disturbances, leading to great difficulties and possibly to widespread massacre, and it is because I realise that fact that I am urging the Government to consider whether it is not possible to insert this Amendment and render these possibilities less likely.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I wonder if hon. Gentlemen think that it is worth while putting this Amendment in? Nobody in this House—as far as I know, nobody in this country—wants to support murder, arson, riot and so on. But is it not best that the Indian people in their own legislature should draft their own rules governing their discussions? Let us not try to keep these Indian people constantly in leading strings. I have not read reports of all the discussions in the Legislative Assembly that there is in India now, but I wonder if there has been anything that justifies an Amendment like this? Have there been many incitements to treason? Have there been any incitements to mutiny, murder, arson, riot?

Brigadier-General BROWN: What about the happenings in 1930 and 1931, and Cawnpore?

Mr. JONES: The hon. and gallant Gentleman wants to put the new central Legislature in certain leading strings. He wants to limit the power of the people in the new Parliament. Has he any evidence from the discussions of the present Legislative Assembly that justifies him in saying that these things are necessary?

Brigadier-General BROWN: Yes.

Mr. JONES: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman recall any instances on a large scale, justifying special legislative action, of appeals to treason, arson and riot. Outside the Assembly he may be able to refer to instances. I wish the
Noble Lady the Member for Kinross (Duchess of Atholl) would sit down for a minute and let me finish my sentence. Is it worth while introducing a big machine like this where there is not a case for its existence? If there be a case, surely the best people to produce such regulations are the standing committee of the new Legislative Assembly, representative of all parties, presided over, if you like, by the Speaker of the new House. Surely we might leave something to these people. Do not let us regard them as children eternally. There is nothing more offensive or aggravating that for them to be treated as children even to their graves. I ask the Committee not to treat them in this rather silly and supercilious way.

8.16 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I would remind the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. M. Jones) that this Indian Assembly is very young. It only began its deliberations towards the end of January of this year.

Mr. JONES: I was not speaking of the present Assembly.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I think the hon. Gentleman will see, when he reads the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow, that he did ask a specific question about this Assembly, and it is to that point I was replying. Young though the present Assembly is, there has already been a debate in which there was raised the question of an official circular from the Government of India to the various provincial Governments, in which they discussed with great anxiety Mr. Gandhi's new village industries association, because they believed it was a move for a new civil disobedience campaign, and the Member of the Government who defended the circular from the attack of the Congress party kept on reading quotations from speeches or writings of prominent Congress men pointing out the desirability of a movement of this kind—speeches which, according to the Press reports, received considerable acclamation. From the short experience we have had of the present Assembly we are already able to say that there have been expressions of opinion in favour of civil disobedience.
Then I ask the hon. Member to remember that prior to this there had been for some years no Congress party,
as such, in the Assembly, and that if there have not been very violent statements of the type mentioned in the Amendment it may well be because the Congress party had given up parliamentary methods and was operating entirely outside. But now the Congress party is back in the Parliamentary arena and is back in strength. It is the strongest party in the Assembly to-day. Therefore we have every reason to fear that there may be more violent expressions of opinion than there have been in the last three or four years. I think I am justified in saying that, because on the showing of the Secretary of State in a memorandum that he submitted to the Joint Select Committee, he admitted an alliance between the Congress party in Bengal with terrorism—a revolutionary party which, we know, seeks to achieve its aim by violent political crime of the most desperate kind. It has already caused the loss of many valuable lives of Government officials, British and Indian.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: As far as I know the Congress party in India has always repudiated utterly any connection with the terrorism in Bengal.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Then I ask the hon. Member to inquire of the Secretary of State what is the authority for his statement. It is also well known that a few years ago the Calcutta Corporation, which has had a strong Congress clement, and, I am afraid, a terrorist element, passed a resolution of sympathy with the man who suffered execution for having murdered Colonel Simpson. That was an expression of sympathy with the terrorist movement on the part of the premier municipality of India. Though we might perhaps regard a thing of that kind as academic, we must remember that in India there is a population of which a very small proportion is literate, that it is a country which has excitable material in it—I believe the climate must tend that way—and that violent passions are very easily aroused. The terrorist movement that has proved extremely difficult to eradicate in Bengal has in fact since 1930 existed in all the provinces in India. Surely, therefore, any expression of opinion in favour of some terrorist act is calculated to inflame the feelings of the young people who chiefly drift into terrorism. The movement is
largely recruited from young people who from misguided patriotism can be excited to act.
Therefore special precautions seem to be necessary to prevent the debates in the Assembly adding greatly to the difficulty of the administration in India. Then there is a mention of mutiny in the Amendment. There is a revival of the movement which sought to incite Sikh regiments to mutiny during the War. It was an attempt to deflect those splendid regiments from their loyalty, and that I believe is the aim of the movement today. You have therefore in India to-day the most dangerous potentialities, not merely in Bengal but in other provinces. The Sikhs are chiefly in the Punjab, of course, and the movement is at work there. You may easily have expressions of opinion in favour of one or all of these movements in the Assembly. Therefore I strongly support the Amendment. I do not want to limit to the slightest degree freedom of speech in the Assembly, so long as it does not lead to licence. I want the members to enjoy every bit of freedom that we enjoy here. We know, however, that if any of us here ventured to utter a seditious speech we should be instantly pulled up by the Chair. In India there has not been time for such traditions to grow up around the Chair, and there are dangerous opinions at work in the political field.

8.24 p.m.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: I sincerely hope that the Government will not accept this Amendment. It seems a monstrous thing that this Parliament should attempt to propose a limitation of the freedom of speech in another Parliament which it is to set up overseas. We perfectly well realise that there are in India movements of the sort referred to, but the place where those matters should be ventilated is surely in the Indian Assembly. Are the people who are going to that Assembly not to be responsible people? Are we to treat them absolutely like children? I have nothing more to say.

8.25 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: As we pass from one Amendment to another I find myself getting very different impressions from time to time as to the classes of persons whom one may expect to find in this Federal Legislature. Earlier in the day I heard the right hon.
Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) deliver a speech from which one gathered that we might expect to find an Assembly largely composed of rich and rather selfish men engaged in shackling—I think that was the word he used—extreme forms of capitalism on the people of India.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I think my right hon. Friend was referring to the Council of State.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The right hon. Gentleman at the time was speaking generally on Clause 18 and I thought he was referring to the Parliament as a whole but we need not dispute about that point. Now after hearing the speeches in support of this Amendment I have the impression that the Federal Legislature will be filled with young firebrands of a very different type from the kind of people indicated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping. This Amendment however raises a narrow point. Some of the speeches in favour of it Bought to bring into the picture the whole question of terrorism and incitement and so forth. But the real point with which it is concerned is whether or not there should be put into the Bill a provision which would make it possible for a member of the Legislature to be prosecuted for words used inside the legislative chamber. Obviously the whole broad question of dealing with incitements to riot and mutiny is a much bigger matter. We have to deal with that outside the legislative chamber. On the assumption that such things are likely to be said in the legislative chamber even if you could stifle those statements within the walls of the Assembly the real problem would still be the general problem of enforcing the criminal law.
Of course nobody in opposing this Amendment for a moment defends incitement to treason, mutiny, murder, arson, or riot. Nobody desires or contemplates that members of the Federal Legislature should incite to treason, mutiny, murder, arson, riot, or any of these other matters. But we are setting up here a responsible Legislature, and in that connection the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. M. Jones) asked a pertinent question. He asked what had happened in the past in regard to this matter. Since 1919 con-
ditions similar to those outlined in the Bill and not in the least comparable to those contemplated in the Amendment have existed, and no inconvenience has resulted from the fact that it has been impossible to prosecute members of the Legislature in circumstances of this kind. Most of the speeches in favour of the Amendment have come from those who hold that this whole experiment is a mistake and who do not think that democracy in the form in which it is to be found in the Bill is going to work in India. I am sure that hon. Members themselves will realise that, having that conviction, it is difficult for them not to want to put into the Bill here and there things which are inconsistent with its general spirit and intention.
I am sure that all in this Committee realise that it must be fundamental to a great legislative assembly that it should have freedom of speech and the power to frame its own rules to prevent abuses. It is in that spirit, realising what has been said by those who have spoken for the Amendment, realising the dangers but also believing that if this scheme is to succeed—as we believe it will and as my hon. and gallant Friend the Mover of the Amendment believes it will not—this is a matter which must be left to the assemblies themselves to control. We believe that they will control it in the proper spirit. While I hope I have not said anything which would indicate any lack of sympathy with what has prompted the Amendment, I must conclude by saying that we think it would be wrong to insert these words in the Bill.

8.30 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: I do not know whether my hon. and gallant Friend is going to press this Amendment to a Division, but it would seem that the Government are determined not to concede any of our Amendments.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Oh, yes, I think two Amendments have been accepted.

Sir H. CROFT: They were very small ones.

Mr. BUTLER: I think the Government have tried as far as possible to meet points raised from all sections of the Committee.

Sir H. CROFT: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I say that he has not met us on the most important points that have been urged from our side. This Amendment has been submitted purely and simply with the desire that if you are determined to go on with this experiment it should be given a reasonable chance of success. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) said that the basis of this scheme must be freedom of speech. Anybody who has made a profound study of the kind of assembly which we are about to set up in the East, must realise that there will be an entirely different spirit there from the spirit which prevails here. Would it not be helpful to the success of this Measure if we were to insert words of this kind, at any rate for the inception of this movement? Am I wrong in suggesting that since the present Assembly has been elected a vote of sympathy has been passed in it to one member who was unable to take his seat because he was in durance vile. That surely is an indication of what is going to happen. Hon. Members must realise that the Congress movement is a powerful machine which is working to create every kind of trouble. I do not want to detain the Committee but I hope the Under-Secretary will mark my words. If this scheme goes through, he will, within five years, be regretting that this Amendment was not accepted. There is every danger, so long as Congress controls politics in India, of the Assembly being turned into a bear-garden if you have no provision of this kind.

Brigadier-General BROWN: In asking leave to withdraw the Amendment, may I express the hope that the Government will put into the Instrument of Instructions to the Governor-General some direction which will save the situation in this respect?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.34 p.m.

Major MILNER: I beg to move, in page 16, line 35, to leave out Subsection (3).
We have just been told by the Solicitor-General that we are setting up in India a responsible legislature, a great deliberative Assembly, and yet in Sub-section (3) of this Clause we propose to take away
from that great legislative body the power to compel the attendance, for any purpose, of any person, before either Chamber or both Chambers sitting together and also to take away from it any punitive or disciplinary powers other than the mere power of removing or excluding persons infringing the rules and the standing orders. I thought that one of the great evidences of a legislature's responsibility was its right, within the confines of its own country, to compel the attendance of persons for any purpose but particularly for the purpose of giving evidence or information. I suggest that it is contrary to the whole spirit of the Bill that that power should be refused to the Indian Assembly. This Clause is a typical instance of what is being done in this Bill. The first Sub-section provides that there shall be freedom of speech and certain other rights; the second Sub-section sets out certain privileges such as may from time to time be defined by acts of the legislature; the third Sub-section, the deletion of which I am moving, takes away from the powers given by the previous Sub-sections.
We are sitting in the High Court of Parliament which has power to bring before it persons for any purpose, to compel their attendance, and to inflict punishment upon them if they do not come, and yet, in setting up an Assembly in India, a country more than 20 times the size of this country, and giving that Assembly powers, we take away from it the powers which, so far as Parliament is concerned, are quite mild. This Subsection is uncalled for. It is far too wide and it is an outrageous limitation on the powers of the Federal Legislature which this Bill sets up that it should not have the right to call witnesses before it. If it sets up a committee to consider any subject, how can it have power to hear evidence or to compel evidence to be given, and to fulfil its proper function if its powers in that respect are taken away before it begins to function? We have been told by the Under-Secretary that the Government have been amenable to reason and that they have agreed to one or two Amendments. I hope they may see the reason of my plea in this respect and restore to the proposed responsible legislative body in India the power which we have in this Parliament.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: The Government have been considering this Sub-section, and we think that its terms are somewhat unduly restrictive of the powers of the Federal Legislature. There are obviously certain rights which it would be a good thing to secure to the Federal Legislature, and, without going into any of the technical points involved in the Sub-section, I should like to say that when we come to the equivalent Clause and Sub-section in the provincial part of this Bill, we shall have a proposal to make. When we resume discussion on this part of the Bill on the Report stage we hope to put down our revised views of the extent to which the powers of the Federal Legislature in this respect should be restricted.

Major MILNER: In view of that assurance, but retaining our right to express our satisfaction or otherwise on the Report stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 30.—(Provisions as to introduc- tion and passing of Bills.)

8.40 p.m.

Major NATHAN: I beg to move, in page 17, line 29, after "Bill," to insert, "other than a financial Bill."
I move this Amendment more or less formally because I appreciate that a great part of its purpose is covered by Clause 37. The object of Clause 30 is obviously to give each of the Legislative Chambers an equal authority. The purpose of the Amendment is to limit the authority so as to secure, as far as may be, that the Lower House may, as indeed is common with all recent modern constitutions within the Empire, have the first and the last word in regard to financial matters and taxation and the imposition of burdens upon the people. If reference is made to the constitutions which have passed through this House for the purpose of framing a code of government for the Dominions, it will be found that, at least of more recent years, each one of the Acts has specifically limited the power of the Upper Chamber in reference especially to matters relating to taxation and the imposition of burdens and charges upon the people. The Commonwealth of Australia Act, for
instance, provides in terms that the Senate may not amend proposed laws imposing taxation or appropriating revenues or moneys for the ordinary general services of the Government; and it goes on to say:
The Senate may not amend any proposed law so as to increase any proposed charge or burden upon the people.
Very much the same provision, almost in the same words, appears in the South Africa Act of 1909 constituting the Union of South Africa:
The Senate may not amend any Bill so far as it imposes taxation or appropriates revenues or moneys for the service of the Government. The Senate may not amend any Bill so as to increase any proposed charges or burdens upon the people.
It will be found that the constitutional practice in Canada is the same. It is proposed, as has been said by the Secretary of State, that the ultimate objective of this Bill is Dominion status for India. Should not India, therefore, have the same control over her financial machinery as this House has deliberately given to the Dominions? I am conscious of the fact that some part of the ground is covered by Clause 37. I will not attempt to discuss that Clause, but nothing contained in this Bill would prevent the Executive from initiating in the Second Chamber laws as to taxation and the imposition of burdens and yet in no other British Dominion, so far as I know, can that be done. In moving the Amendment my main object is to ask the Government whether it is by design or intention that Clause 30 gives these parallel or equal powers to the two Chambers and does not put the Lower Chamber in India in the same position as the Lower Chamber in the British Dominions.

The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. and gallant Member must be attaching a little more to this Amendment than I thought he was. The effect of his Amendment, as I understand it, would simply be that the upper Chamber would not be required to pass or assent to a finance Bill, and although I do not want to interrupt the hon. and gallant Member's argument I cannot allow the Government or anybody else, in discussing this Amendment, to enter upon a general discussion of Clause 37.

Major NATHAN: I was most anxious not to embark upon that, and I was
hopeful that I had done no more than make a reference to it which was necessary in order to make clear the argument I was advancing. If I may respectfully say so, I agree that the words of this Amendment are, perhaps, not quite so wide as I had indicated, and possibly they are not even the most apt words for achieving the object I have in view, nor may this be the best place in which to insert them. But, as I have indicated, the purpose of the Amendment is to inquire from the Government how far it is proposed to limit the authority and the power of the lower House to be alone responsible in matters relating to finance and the imposition of burdens on the people.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: The hon. and gallant Member says that the purpose of his Amendment is to elicit from the Government their view as to the powers of the two Chambers. The effect of his Amendment would be, in fact, to go counter to the objective of the Government in this Bill of implementing the decision of the Joint Select Committee that in the matter of supply the Chambers should have equal powers. I can give him the answer which he desires very shortly, although I fear he may not agree with it. The Joint Select Committee say in paragraph 215:
We entirely endorse the principle that, so far as possible, the two Houses should have equal powers.
They therefore suggest that the Upper House should have wider powers in relation to finance, and should be able not only to secure that a rejected grant is reconsidered at a joint session of the two Houses but also power to refuse its assent to any Bill, clause or grant which has been accepted by the Lower House. They go on to say:
We think, therefore, that all Demands should be considered first by the Lower House and subsequently by the Upper.
and suggest that the powers of each House in relation to any demand should be identical, any difference of opinion being resolved at a joint session to be held forthwith. I have read those two sentences because they explain exactly the object of the Government in inserting this particular provision in the Bill, and in drafting Clause, 30, which has to do with the provision as to the introduction
of Bills, in its present form. If the words of the hon. and gallant Member's Amendment were introduced they would defeat the object we have in mind. In answering the arguments he has used to support his contention, I think it would be wise to remember that what he calls the "burden on the people" which might be occasioned by this method of dealing with financial procedure does not apply to the same extent here—if it is a burden at all—as in the Provinces. When we come to consider the provincial section of the Bill it will be seen—and I think this is relevant to my argument—that the powers of the upper House in the Provinces are of a dilatory nature, but as the powers of the upper House in the Federation are equal to those of the lower House there were strong reasons for the course we have taken, and I could, if necessary, refer the Committee to the representations of the representatives of the Chamber of Princes in the course of evidence before the Joint Select Committee. It seems to us to fit into the conception of the future Constitution of the Central Government in India, and having drawn the attention of the Committee to the fact that it is in the Provinces that many of the social questions and questions involving expenditure of money arise, I think the Committee will see that our proposal implements the object of the Joint Select Committee, implements the desire of the Chamber of Princes, and falls in with the general conception of the powers of the two Chambers in the Central Legislature.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: The hon. Gentleman has given as the reason for this merely the authority of the Joint Select Committee, but has furnished us with no reasons why the powers of the two Houses should be equal. I think it is entirely fallacious to suggest that this question of finance at the centre does not concern the mass of the people.

Mr. BUTLER: To the same extent.

Mr. ATTLEE: What is going to be the biggest issue at the centre? It will be the question of whether there is to be direct or indirect taxation. There is the whole question of the Customs revenue, which presses very hardly on the masses in many cases, and also the question of income tax. This is a vitally important matter. This is really the only big piece of business of a semi-administrative kind that comes before the Centre at all. In setting up two Chambers both of which are very unrepresentative—the Second Chamber undoubtedly entirely unrepresentative of anything except vested interests—we are loading up the Second Chamber with representatives from the Second Chambers of the Provinces or from the groups of persons of similar type that would be elected to a Second Chamber. Therefore this Second Chamber is going to be predominantly representative of the richer portion of the population and there are also to be representatives of the Princes. It is going to be a far more reactionary body than "the other place" in our Parliament here. This Second Chamber is to be given powers with regard to finance equal to those of the lower House. Not only are they to have power to reject financial proposals but power to amend. I can see no reason for giving them equal powers. Once we get to the point of giving them equal powers we take away the utility of a Second Chamber at all. We on this side regard this as one example of the way in which effective power at the Centre is being taken from the representatives of the Indian people. Complete control over finance is really being given to the nominees of the Princes and representatives of the small and very wealthy section of the community. That is why we are moving this Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 40; Noes, 216.

Division No. 93.]
AYES.
[8.55 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Daggar, George
Holdsworth, Herbert


Attlee, Clement Richard
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jenkins, Sir William


Banfield, John William
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Batey, Joseph
Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Kirkwood, David


Bernays, Robert
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Lawson, John James


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Grenfell, David Reel (Glamorgan)
Logan, David Gilbert


Cape, Thomas
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'. W.)
McEntee, Valentine L.


Cleary, J. J.
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mainwaring, William Henry


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Milner, Major James


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Harris, Sir Percy
Nathan, Major H. L.


Parkinson, John Allen
Thorne, William James
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Rathbone, Eleanor
Tinker, John Joseph
Williams, Thomas (York. Don Valley)


Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
West, F. R.



Smith, Tom (Normanton)
White, Henry Graham
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr G. Macdonald and Mr. Groves.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Ganzoni, Sir John
Orr Ewing, I. L.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Palmer, Francis Noel


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Gledhill, Gilbert
Patrick, Colin M.


Albery, Irving James
Goff, Sir Park
Peake, Osbert


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Goldie, Noel B.
Pearson, William G.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Penny, Sir George


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Greene, William P. C.
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Apsley, Lord
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Petherick, M.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Grimston, R. V.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Atholl, Duchess of
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Pownail, Sir Assheton


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Pybus, Sir John


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hanbury, Cecil
Radford, E. A.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hartington, Marquess of
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Balniel, Lord
Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th. C.)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Henderson. Sir Vivian L, (Chelmsford)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Hepworth, Joseph
Rickards, George William


Blindell, James
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Robinson, John Roland


Boulton, W. W.
Hornby, Frank
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Horobin, Ian M.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Salt, Edward W.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)
Scone, Lord


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Selley, Harry R.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Browne, Captain A. C.
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Burghley, Lord
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Shuts, Colonel Sir John


Burnett, John George
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Butler, Richard Austen
Ker, J. Campbell
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Smith, Sir J. Walker. (Barrow-in-F.)


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dlne, C.)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Kimball, Lawrence
Somervell, Sir Donald


Cazalet, Thelma (lslington, E.)
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Soper, Richard


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Leckie, J. A.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Christie, James Archibald
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Spens, William Patrick


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morianid)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Lewis, Oswald
Stones, James


Cook, Thomas A.
Liddall, Walter S.
Strauss, Edward A,


Cooke, Douglas
Lleweilln, Major John J.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Cooper, A. Duff
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Templeton, William P.


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Cranborne, Viscount
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Thompson, Sir Luke


Craven-Ellis, William
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Crooke, J. Smedley
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
McKeag, William
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Todd, Lt. Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Manningham-Builer, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Crossley, A. C.
Margesson, Cant. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Train, John


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Martin, Thomas B.
Tree, Ronald


Davison, Sir William Henry
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Danville, Alfred
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Donner, P. W.
Milne, Charles
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsand)


Dunglass, Lord
Mitcheson, G. G.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Eady, George H.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G,


Eastwood, John Francis
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Wills, Willrld D.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Munro, Patrick
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Erskine-Bolst, Capt C. C. (Blackpool)
Nail. Sir Joseph
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Weish Univ.)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Womersley, Sir Walter


Everard, W. Lindsay
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Flelden, Edward Brocklehurst
Nunn, William



Fleming, Edward Lascelles
O'Connor, Terence James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Fremantle, Sir Francis
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert




Ward and Major George Davies.

9.2 p.m.

Lord SCONE: I beg to move, in page 17, line 34, to leave out Sub-section (3).
The purpose of this Amendment is purely elucidatory. We should be much obliged if the Secretary of State would inform us why we are to depart from the practice of this House, in that a Bill is not being allowed to lapse after both Houses are prorogued. We should be very grateful if he would state the reasons which have induced the Government to make this change.

9.3 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): The reason is solely one of convenience, having regard to the conditions under which the Indian Legislature have been accustomed to operate. The practice in this country is that Parliament sits for a long session, from January almost to December, but the practice in India is to sit for very short periods, for two or three months and then for a shorter period perhaps, both of which periods made up one session. In practice it would not be very convenient, if Parliament sits for the same sort of period in future as in the past, if a Bill which was not carried to completion in the course of those comparatively short sessions were to lapse when prorogation came about at the end of the session. It is simply a matter of convenience, based upon the practice which has been followed with regard to the length of the session, no doubt largely due to seasonal conditions in that country.

9.4 p.m.

Lord SCONE: I am much obliged to my right hon. and learned Friend for his explanation, which I think is quite satisfactory, but before asking leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment, I should be grateful if he could answer one further question. The Subsection says:
A Bill pending in the Legislature shall not lapse by reason of the prorogation of the Chambers.
What is the exact meaning of the word "pending "? Does pending mean that a Bill has been introduced and given a formal reading, or that it is about to be introduced? I think that that small point is worth an answer.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: A Bill is only pending when it has actually been
introduced or when it has had a First Reading.

Lord SCONE: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 32.—(Assent to Bills and disallow- ance by His Majesty.)

9.5 p.m.

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: I beg to move, in page 20, line 14, to leave out Sub-section (3).
We look upon this Sub-section as one which ought not to be allowed to pass without a vigorous protest. In Subsections (1) and (2) the utmost care is taken to see that the Act referred to in Sub-section (3), when it was a Bill, was looked at in every detail, and every conceivable precaution is taken to see to it that the authorities, both in India and in this country, have given their consent to the Bill. When the Bill becomes an Act, and after it has been in operation perhaps for almost 12 months, power is given to His Majesty to disallow its continuance. We take that to mean that the Secretary of State will advise His Majesty ultimately to advise the Governor-General that the Act, to which the Secretary of State himself has assented, shall cease to operate. We think that that is an objectionable provision.
During the same period of 12 months it would be easy for the Government of this country to change. Suppose that the present Government were to give its approval to a Measure passing through the Legislature, and that it was replaced 11 or 12 months afterwards by a Socialist Government, who considered that the legislation approved by the previous Government was wrong and disallowed it. Such a procedure would make good government impossible. Think of the position in which the Indian people would be placed. They would have no security from interference from this country. Whatever objections we may have had to the Bill on the Second Reading, we find, as we come to details of this character, still stronger objections. In view of the adequate provision in Sub-sections (1) and (2), we feel that
to allow further interference 12 months after the Measure has been operating in India is most objectionable.

9.8 p.m.

Mr. DONNER: Might I ask a question before my right hon. Friend replies? What would be the position of a man who had been convicted under an Act which had been passed and then was disallowed by the Governor-General? The point is a small one, and I do not wish to press it, but it seems to me that there is a possibility of a rather curious situation arising. Perhaps my right hon. Friend, when he replies, will be good enough to clear up the point.

9.9 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I daresay in theory a great many of the awkward results suggested by the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) might happen, but in actual practice they never have happened, and they are not likely to happen. This is a provision that is contained in every Constitution Act of a similar kind within the British Empire, and it is necessary from the point of view of the prerogative of the Crown.

Mr. MACDONALD: Is it in the Statute of Westminster?

9.10 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: That does not affect my point. The argument is that in practice it has not created the kind of difficulties which the hon. Member contemplates. It has been in operation for half a century in the Dominions, and has not raised the difficulties that he has in mind. Without it, the Crown would part with its prerogative under which it can withhold its assent to the Act of any subordinate legislature, and, technically, legislatures of this kind are subordinate legislatures. From the point of view of the prerogative of the Crown the provision is necessary, and in actual practice it is not in the least likely that these difficulties will arise. The answer to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for West Islington (Mr. Donner) is that in the case he supposes the Act would not be a valid Act, and the individual would not be convicted.

9.11 p.m.

Mr. DONNER: May I suggest that there is some slight misunderstanding?
My point is as to the position of a man who has been convicted and is in prison under an Act when that Act is subsequently disallowed. Is he to be set free and compensated, or merely to be set free; or does he still remain in prison, convicted under an Act which later on is disallowed? It seems to me that, unless the matter is cleared up, it might open the way to grave injustice.

Sir S. HOARE: I have just asked the Attorney-General, who tells me that the Act would be a valid Act until it had been disallowed. The conviction, therefore, would be a valid conviction until the Act had been disallowed. I can, perhaps, reassure my hon. Friend by saying that I do not think any case of this kind has ever arisen, although this actual provision has been in operation in every part of the Empire for 50, 60 or 70 years.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: Would the right hon. Gentleman give us a little more reason for this provision? Is it not the case that the provision was inserted to preserve the Royal prerogative at a time when it took about a year for an Act to come back from India? What is the real reason for it at the present time? Suppose that an Act has been passed and assented to by the King's representatives. That Act will be sent back to this country, and not seen by the Secretary of State or anyone else; and yet it is to be left, after 12 months, in a state of uncertainty, with the possibility of its being disallowed. Meanwhile all kinds of things may have been done under it. People may have been executed; all kinds of contracts may have been effected under it. Why should 12 months be allowed in which to advise His Majesty whether the Act is a good Act or not?

9.13 p.m.

Mr. EMMOTT: I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State. I put it in no hostile or critical spirit, but purely in a spirit of inquiry. He said that this provision is included in the Acts which contain the Constitutions of the Dominions. Will he tell the Committee whether in fact this provision has been used, and, if so, whether it has been used frequently?

9.14 p.m.

Lord SCONE: Arising out of the question of my hon. Friend the Member for
West Islington (Mr. Donner), suppose that a certain person, under an Act which had been disallowed, had been sentenced to a long period of imprisonment, say, two years or five years. The Act is disallowed. The sentence will stand, because it was passed when the Act was valid. Are we to understand that a man might be kept in prison for two or three years afterwards, although while he was in prison the offence for which he had been in prison was no longer an offence?

9.17 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for India a question. I am not altogether satisfied about the position of the man whom the Noble Lord the Member for Perth (Lord Scone) has been describing. If an Act passed by the legislature was subsequently disallowed, would a man rightfully committed at the time, in the event of subsequent disallowance, be in the position of an individual who has benefited from a change of the law? If that were so, the position of such an individual would be virtually the same as that of any other individual who benefits when the legislature changes the law and it happens to react in his favour. If that is the case, the Committee need have no doubt about letting the Subsection stand as it is.

9.18 p.m.

Mr. COCKS: Surely, this provision is simply a piece of antiquarianism. It existed before the advent of the electric cable and wireless and when the Governor-General gave consent on his own without consulting the Government, but now the Governor-General does not give consent without communicating with the Secretary of State, thereby giving the assent of His Majesty's Government; and surely 12 months later he would not go back on his own signed word. I suggest that this provision has been put in by mistake and that now there is no need for it at all, as it is an anomaly.

Sir S. HOARE: I should describe it as a piece of Conservative constitutionalism.

Mr. COCKS: That is an anomaly.

9.19 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: The answer really is that which I gave just now, namely, that it is the position in every Dominion Constitution, and it is unrepealed. The
Statute of Westminster, of course, has made a difference as to how it is exercised, but there is the position unrepealed in every Dominion constitution. I am further informed that it is necessary to have it from the point of view of the prerogative of the Crown. When I am asked these difficult questions as to what is to happen to hypothetical individuals in hypothetical contingencies, my answer is that none of these as far as I know has ever arisen. If such a case as that suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for West Islington (Mr. Donner) did arise, the individual, I am informed, would be legally convicted, but as soon as the Act is disallowed equally legally would he be released. I do not think that my hon. Friend need get worried because it is never used, and I think it is less likely to be used in future than in the past, for the reason raised by the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee), who pointed to the better means of communication between India and this country. It has never arisen in the past when it took weeks and months to come from India, and much less is it likely to arise in future when we can communicate by telegraph, aeroplane, and the telephone.

Mr. ATTLEE: May we not ask for more information on this matter? We have, heard something vague to the effect that it is necessary to preserve the prerogative of the Crown. Can the learned Attorney-General tell us how the prerogative of the Crown is preserved, and why it needs 12 months to preserve it? The reply of the Secretary of State is open to the same objection which St. Joan in the play made to the other side, when they said torture was always customary, "Thou are a rare noodle, master, that what has been must be."

9.21 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: No doubt the 12 months is a great deal longer than is necessary to communicate with India, but as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, the 12 months is a piece of conservative constitutionalism, but it really does not matter at all if communication can be made in a much shorter time; no reasonable Secretary of State is ever likely to take advantage of the fact that 12 months is in the Clause
But if you are to have a Clause of this sort in common form with all the constitutions given to different parts of the Empire, you may as well preserve the Clause in the form in which it is invariably inserted in the various constitutions. The hon. Gentleman asks in what way is the prerogative of the Crown preserved. The prerogative of the Crown was at one time, of course, exercised by the Governor-General in a self-governing Colony as the representative of the Crown. Now the difference is that he exercises his right of giving assent upon the advice of the responsible Ministers in the self-governing Dominion where they have full status under the Statute of Westminster. As far as India is concerned, of course, that is not the position, and the right is still reserved in the Constitution which is proposed to be given to India to be exercised by His Majesty, not upon the advice of Ministers who are not fully responsible in India, but upon the advice of the Secretary of State, and in that way the prerogative of the Crown is preserved constitutionally with the form of the Constitution which is to be conferred upon India by this Bill.

9.22 p.m.

Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: It is a very remarkable thing that we should introduce a provision in this Bill solely because it has been in existence all the time. It ought to be possible for us to make an adaptation in the legislation so as to make

it fit in with a change in the circumstances. There is no reason why we should not have 12 days in the Bill rather than 12 months. While I have been sitting here I thought of one reason why perhaps it ought to be left in the Bill. It has probably not occurred to the Secretary of State for India. In the Constitution which we shall be giving to India it is very probable that the legislation will be carried in India against the Indian masses, and, in view of the fact that they will have 12 months to agitate against the Act, they may transfer the agitation from India to England in order to try to secure a repeal of the Act within 12 months. If, therefore, the Secretary of State for India thinks that it is desirable that the veto of the Crown should become the football of Indian politics, and that we should have the game played over here and not there, it is as well that we should have this provision left in. We should have merry times in the future if the Secretary of State for India and Members of the House of Commons were importuned to repeal within a year an Act of Parliament which would become universally objectionable to the masses of India. I do not know whether the Secretary of State has considered that point, but if he has perhaps he will take this out before the Report stage.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 243; Noes, 31.

Division No. 94.]
AYES.
[9.25 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon Sir Francis Dyke
Brass, Captain Sir William
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Cranborne, Viscount


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Broadbent, Colonel John
Craven-Ellis, William


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Albery, Irving James
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Crooke, J. Smedley


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Browne, Captain A. C.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.


Apsley, Lord
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Crossley, A. C.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Burghley, Lord
Culverwell, Cyril Tom


Assheton, Ralph
Burnett, John George
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Atholl, Duchess of
Butt, Sir Alfred
Davison, Sir William Henry


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Denman, Hon. R. D,


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G, (Burnley)
Denville, Alfred


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Dunglass, Lord


Balniel, Lord
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Eady, George H.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Ellis, Sir R Geoffrey


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-te-Spring)
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th. C.)
Christie, James Archibald
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Erskine-Bolst, Capt C. C. (Blackpool)


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Colfox, Major William Philip
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)


Bernays, Robert
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J,
Everard, W. Lindsay


Boulton, W. W.
Cook, Thomas A.
Flslden, Edward Brocklehurst


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Cooke, Douglas
Fleming, Edward Lascelies


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Cooper, A. Duff
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)


Boyce, H. Lestle
Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Fremantle, Sir Francis


Bralthwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Ganzoni. Sir John


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Gledhill, Gilbert
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Goff, Sir Park
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Salt, Edward W.


Goldie, Noel B.
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Scone, Lord


Greene, William P. C.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Selley, Harry R.


Grenfell, E. C. (City London)
McKeag, William
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Griffith, F. Kingslety (Middlesbro'. W.)
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Grimston, R. V.
Manningham-Bullar, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Shute, Colonel Sir John


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Martin, Thomas B.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Ztl'nd)
Mason, Col. Glyn K, (Croydon, N.)
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)


Hanbury, Cecil
Mayhew, Lieut-Colonel John
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dlne, C.)


Harris. Sir Percy
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Somervell, Sir Donald


Hartington, Marquess of
Milne, Charles
Somervliie, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)
Mitcheson, G. G.
Soper, Richard


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Molton, A. Hugh Elsdale
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Spans, William Patrick


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Munro. Patrick
Stones, James


Hepworth, Joseph
Nail, Sir Joseph
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Strauss, Edward A.


Holdsworth, Herbert
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Hornby, Frank
Nunn, William
Sutcliffe, Harold


Horobin, Ian M.
O'Connor, Terence James
Tate, Mavis Constance


Horsbrugh, Florence
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Templeton, William P.


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Orr Ewing, I. L.
Thompson, Sir Luke


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Palmer. Francis Noel
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Patrick, Colin M.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Peake, Osbert
TItchfield, Major the Marquess of


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Pearson, William G.
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Penny, Sir George
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Perkins. Walter R. D.
Train, John


Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Petherick, M.
Tree, Ronald


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Pickthorn. K. W. M.
Tufnell, Lieut-Commander R. L.


Ker, J. Campbell
Pybus, Sir John
Turton, Robert Hugh


Kerr, Lieut.-Col Charles (Montrose)
Radford, E. A.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsand)


Kimball, Lawrence
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Kirkpatrick, William M.
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Wayland, Sir William A.


Knox, Sir Alfred
Rathbone, Eleanor
Wells, Sydney Richard


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Reid, David D. (County Down)
White, Henry Graham


Law, Sir Alfred
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Leckie, J. A.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Leech, Dr. J. w.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Rickards, George William
Wise, Alfred R.


Lennox-Boyd. A. T.
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Womersley, Sir Waiter


Lewis, Oswald
Robinson, John Roland
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Liddall, Walter S.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)



Llewellin, Major John J.
Ruggies-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Lockar-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Sir Victor Warrender and Mr. Blindell.




Blindell.


NOES.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Gardner, Benjamin Waiter
Maxton, James.


Banfield, John William
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Milner, Major James.


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
Nathan, Major H. L.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Jenkins, Sir William
Parkinson, John Alien


Buchanan, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cape, Thomas
Lawton, John James
Thorne, William James


Cleary, J. J.
Logan, David Gilbert
West, F. R.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Dagger, George
McGovern, John



Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Mainwaring, William Henry
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Groves and Mr. Tinker.


Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 33.—(Annual Financial State- ment).

9.33 p.m.

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: I beg to move, in page 20, line 37, to leave out from "expenditure," to the end of the Subsection.
This Clause deals with the annual financial statement that the Governor-General is obliged to lay before both Chambers of the Federal Legislature. After outlining one of the forms that the estimates of expenditure ought to take, the Clause goes on that estimates of expenditure shall
indicate the sums, if any, which are included solely because the Governor-General
has directed their inclusion as being necessary for the due discharge of any of his special responsibilites.
At a later stage in the Committee proceedings it is proposed to move an Amendment to include sums to be spent in discharge of special responsibilities, as sums to be charged on the revenues of the Federation. These sums, therefore, will appear in Clause 33 under Subsection (2, a) in some general form. We contend that it would be very undesirable to allocate a particular sum of money to some particular responsibility. In particular, we hold it very inexpedient to publish the fact that the Governor-General contemplates any heavy expenditure on the prevention of a grave menace to the peace and tranquillity of India, whether external or internal. The publication that the Governor-General expected it might well facilitate the arrival of what he desired to prevent. Under the next Clause, Clause 34, these sums are not only to be discussed in the Chamber, but voted upon. Although in Clause 35 the Governor-General can get the money ultimately, if he wants it, for his special responsibilities, there will have been great delay possibly and certainly great publicity before he exercises the powers that he will enjoy under Clause 35. In these circumstances, we hold very stongly to the view that it would be far better to omit these words, and I beg to move the Amendment in the hope that the Secretary of State will give it favourable consideration.

9.36 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: The procedure proposed in the Bill is inevitable, and I think my hon. Friend will see that it is inevitable, for this reason, that expenditure of this kind will be expenditure at the discretion of the Governor-General. The Ministers will not be responsible for it. That being so, it is essential that a distinction should be drawn between expenditure for which the Governor-General is responsible and expenditure for which the Ministers are responsible. Therefore, it must be clearly set out when the Governor-General incurs expenditure of this kind, otherwise it might be thought that the Indian Ministers were responsible for it. The Indians with whom we discussed this question were very clear on this point that where the
Governor-General is responsible it should be clearly his responsibility and the Ministers should not have to undertake any direct or indirect responsibility for something for which they were not responsible. That being so, I think it is essential to make this distinction and to make it in the way proposed in the Bill. I am not nervous, as my hon. Friend is nervous, about publicity in this matter. I hope that the instances in which the Governor-General has to incur expenditure of this kind will be rare, but where they do take place I see no reason why we should avoid publicity. In fact, I think that from the Indian point of view as well as from our own point of view it is important to have a distinction where the Governor-General is responsible and where the Ministers are responsible. That being so, I hope my hon. Friend will see that there is reason for this proposition being in the Bill.

9.38 p.m.

Viscount WOLMER: I can quite follow my right hon. Friend's reasons, although he does not put them very convincingly. I agree that the plan that he is following is a perfectly consistent one, but it seems to me to suffer from grave inconveniences. The case which we contemplate will only arise where there is an acute difference of opinion between the Governor-General and his Ministers. It will be a case of acute friction. One might almost say that it will be a case of crisis. The real point is whether this expenditure on which the Governor-General insists shall be debated publicly. I submit that there might well be circumstances where such a debate would be highly undesirable. The debate might well be a farce, seeing that the Governor-General can get his money and that he is going to get his money, in spite of the opposition of his Ministers and in spite of the decision of the Assembly. Therefore, there is no need to have a debate from the point of view of getting the money.
The Secretary of State says that he is not afraid of the subject being ventilated. Very likely in most cases the Governor-General would take the same view. In certain cases the Governor-General might wish to have the matter ventilated. He might think that a debate would do good. Equally in other cases a debate might be disastrous. It might
lead to a communal riot or to grave communal trouble, which might mean the loss of scores of lives. Therefore, it seems to me to be a mistake to have a procedure which forces these items to be separately specified in the Estimates and practically makes a debate compulsory, in circumstances of the greatest publicity. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that this is a matter in which the Governor-General might be given a little latitude. If he thinks it necessary that the exact figure and the exact reason should be stated, then he ought to be in a position to do it, but to force him to put it down in black and white and practically to force a debate in the Assembly, which will have no power to refuse the money, appears to me in some cases to be asking for trouble. I hope the Secretary of State will reconsider his attitude on the Amendment, if not now between now and the Report stage. He has not accepted many of our Amendments, and I think this is one to which ho might give more consideration.

9.43 p.m.

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: May I say, briefiy, why I think it might be wise if the Amendment were not pressed. It is perfectly true, as my Noble Friend has said, that the occasions when this matter might come up might be occasions of acute friction. I can well imagine that in circumstances like that no possible good could be served by the matter being left obscure. If there is friction then that is just the type of case which if the matter was left obscure would be subject to exaggeration on the part of those who wished to make capital out of it. No good could be served by giving opportunity for that sort of thing. Moreover, one would imagine that the difference between the Governor-General and the Ministers in these hypothetical cases must be known and later on almost inevitably the Ministers themselves would bring out the amount or state the amount when their estimates were being considered. It is difficult always to imagine accurately the circumstances of hypothetical cases, but this is one of those in which I cannot believe that clarity is undesirable or can be undesirable in any case. On the other hand, to leave the matter obscure might lead to misunderstanding, which might be very undesirable.

9.44 p.m.

Mr. A. BEVAN: I hope that the Secretary of State will not yield to the extraordinary arguments which the Noble Lord has put forward. His point of view is at complete variance with our ideas of finance. If his proposals were allowed to become part of our Constitution our financial relationship with certain items of expenditure would be so obscure that we could have no sort of public scrutiny over them. The circumstances envisaged by the Amendment are circumstances in which the Governor-General comes into conflict with the Indian Ministers. They may disapprove most violently and bitterly of the steps that ho proposes to take and yet he persists in taking those steps, and they involve certain expenditure upon the Indian people. Are they not entitled to learn in an open manner what they have to pay for the policy pursued by the Governor-General, or is the amount involved to be obscured by being included in the general Budget.
I have never listened to a more reactionary proposal. If the Governor-General believes that it is desirable to pursue a certain policy he should be prepared to tell the Indian people the price they have to pay. The Amendment cuts at the root of representative government; you do not know upon what items it is proposed to spend public money. In this country a considerable advance was made in 1929 in local government budgets. It had been the practice for many years to charge a general rate of poundage including all the various items of local expenditure, but it was considered desirable, in the interests of public education and sounder finance, to specify the services for which the rate was demanded, so that the people should know how much was being spent on education and so on. It is one of the best ways of educating a democracy to learn why it is that they are called upon to pay certain moneys. The same thing should exist in respect of Indian expenditure. It should be itemised as much as possible, and the Indian people should know of those cases where the exercise of the Governor-General's powers impose a charge. In those circumstances more than any other the cost of the Governor-General's veto should be known to the Indian people.

9.48 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I do not resist the Amendment merely because I want to resist any Amendment to the Bill, but because I think it will blur responsibility as between the Governor-General and ministers. That would be a great mistake. I oppose it in the second place, because I do not think it would achieve the end sought by hon. Members. If it were carried it would not stop discussion. Ministers would be free to bring the subject up in debate, and if there is to be a debate it is much better that it should be brought up in the obvious way by the Governor-General himself rather than be dragged up in perhaps an acrimonious atmosphere. For these two reasons, I suggest that it would be a mistake to press the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

9.49 p.m.

Sir R. CRADDOCK: I beg to move, in page 21, line 18, to leave out from "Court" to the end of the paragraph, and to insert "and of every High Court."
The Amendment is proposed in order to clear up certain doubts as regards the pensions and salaries of judges in the High Court. It is put down in order that the Secretary of State may make it plain that the salaries of the judges are sufficiently secured and to show reasons why the Amendment is not necessary. The position of High Court judges is somewhat difficult. Their pensions are included in the sums chargeable to the federal account but not their salaries. Although their salaries are voted by the Provincial Governments, they are at the same time in a different position from other servants of the Crown. As we know judges are apt to be a little bit touchy about their salaries in this country, and I think that the same would apply to Indian judges. The object of the Amendment is not that the Federal fund should pay their salaries direct but that it should be recognised as a special responsibility of the Federal fund to pay judges salaries if Provincial funds for any reason are not immediately available for the purpose. It may be true that for administrative convenience the salaries of the judges should be paid by the Provincial Governments which receive the court fees due in respect of the High Court. That is so, but we have to have regard to the possibility of difficulty
arising in provincial budgets, and in that case there should be some means by which the Government should have the right to secure these salaries by borrowing the money in the name of the Provinces or by ordering a special tax to be imposed. There would be great difficulty in obtaining the necessary credit for a loan if a Provincial Government could not pay its own justices.
The Bill admits the case of the judges as regards their pensions. The Federal revenue is to be liable for their pensions if there is any delay or default in receiving them from Provincial funds. One must remember that High Court judges are one of the few appointments made by the Crown, and the judges of the Provincial High Courts are just as much appointments by the Crown as judges of the High Court. There are, of course, a number of Governments concerned in this matter, and some of them may have made inadequate funds and all of them may not be solvent to the same degree. It would be very desirable that the position of High Court judges appointed direct by the Crown should be put in a special department in respect of the payment of their salaries as well as the payment of their pensions. It must also be recognised that it is the intention of the Government under the Bill that a certain number of the judges shall be recruited from the ranks of English and Scottish lawyers.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think we can possibly go into the question of the recruitment of judges on this Amendment. Under Clause 78 it is provided that their salaries shall be charged on provincial revenues, and all that we can argue on this Amendment is whether it is desirable or not that they should also be charged on Federal revenues.

Sir R. CRADDOCK: I was not intending to be out of order, but I was trying to make the point that judges are not so easy to procure from this country among the ranks of the Bar, and that, therefore, in respect of those judges at all events, they must have a real feeling of security about their pay before they will undertake to give up their practice at the Bar and go out to spend 10 or 12 years in India, which they generally have to do. For all these reasons combined it seems desirable to make a special
exception about the salaries of judges of the High Court, just as special provision has been made for their pensions.

9.56 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The effect of the Amendment would be, as the hon. Member has explained, to bring not only the pensions of the High Court judges, but also their salaries and allow ances, on to the Federal budget. Perhaps I may say how it comes about that the Bill as drawn provides that the pensions shall be upon the Federal budget. That is in conformity with the general plan of the Bill, that the pensions of all persons who are appointed by the Secretary of State or by the Crown shall come first of all from the Federal revenues, although the amount is to be recoverable ultimately from the appropriate province. But now my hon. Friend proposes, as I understand it for the purpose of greater security, that not only the pensions but the salaries and allowances of the High Court judges should be placed on the Federal budget. You, Sir, have reminded him that the proposal contained in Clause 78, Subsection (3, d), puts the expenditure in respect of the salaries and allowances of judges of the High Court upon the revenues of each province. It will be remembered, of course, that the Governor-General is charged with the duty of seeing that the money is available for the purpose of expenditure charged on the revenues of each province, one part of which expenditure is in respect of the salaries and allowances of the judges. My hon. Friend can hardly attach greater importance to the salaries and allowances of the judges than, shall I say, the salary and allowances of the Governor and other expenditure relating to his office, which are the first item charged upon the provincial revenues, and the salaries of the judges are another item coming a little lower down in the list. If the money was not available for the payment of these salaries and allowances, it would, of course, mean that there had been to that extent a breakdown of the provincial government.
My hon. Friend has not advanced any other reason than that connected with the financial security of the position for proposing his change, otherwise there might have been perhaps a good deal to say in answer to the suggestion. He does not,
I understand, advance any reason for what may be called the federalisation of the provincial high courts, and as he has put it solely upon the financial ground, I suggest that the provisions which are contained in Clause 78 are sufficient to allay any fears that he may feel as to whether or not the judges' salaries will be available when they come to be paid.

10.0 p.m.

Sir R. CRADDOCK: There is one other point. The Governor-General has special responsibilities for the financial stability and solvency of the funds of the Federal Government, but the Governor of a province has no similar responsibilities for the financial stability and solvency of the funds of his province, and that is a point in which I submit the security and credit of the Federal Government must be stronger than that of the various provincial Governments.

10.1 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: My hon. Friend will realise that that is a different and a very much wider point. No doubt we shall come to discuss, when we come to discuss the special responsibilities of the Provincial Governors, the question whether they should or should not have special responsibilities for the financial stability of the Provinces. We cannot very well discuss it now. Let me, however, state that I cannot see that there really is any risk in this matter. Even though the Provincial Governor has no special responsibility for the financial stability of his Province, he will have upon him the duty of finding the money for this charge and, if the money is not voted, to make an imposition of his own, and I cannot conceive, short of a complete breakdown of the Provincial Government, in which case the Governor of the Province will have to take over the whole of the machinery of government, that he will find any difficulty in insisting upon there being this comparatively small sum available out of all the provincial revenues. I think, therefore, there is no real risk such as my hon. Friend seems to have suspected, and if there is no such risk, it would be a great mistake to charge upon the Federal budget what is really a provincial financial charge. The only effect of that would be to make confusion between the finances of the Province and those of the Federation, and it would be likely to raise the worst kind of feeling between the Province and the Federa-
tion. Therefore, I hope my hon. Friend will see, first of all, that there is no real risk, and, secondly, that this would not be a wise or effective way of treating this matter.

10.3 p.m.

Mr. D. D. REID: May I point out that for this House by legislation to direct that certain sums should be paid is not the same thing as to provide for them. I think many Members of the Committee will remember the legislation with regard to the amalgamation of the railways, where we set up a tribunal which was to regulate railway rates at such an amount as would provide a certain standard revenue for the railway companies, but we know that that has broken down hopelessly and completely. I would point out that there is one anomaly in our constitution, and that is in the part of the United Kingdom one division of which I represent, namely, Northern Ireland. There the judges are appointed by the British Government, and their salaries are paid out of the Consolidated Fund, I think. Thre is no difficulty in providing for them, because the North of Ireland is mainly financed by an amount paid back to it by the British Government out of the taxes collected by the British Government in Northern Ireland. I understand that a large part of the revenue of the Provinces in India is going to be remitted to them out of revenues collected by the Federal Governors. The analogy is very close. I do not see how there could be any difficulty in this matter. If the Provinces pay the salaries they are paid. That is the end of it. If this Amendment is accepted the Federal Government pays them and deducts them from the amount paid over to the Provincial Governments. I greatly distrust what I have been told in this House as to administrative difficulties. The expression usually means that some official does not want to take the trouble of providing for something. Nine times out of 10 the people of the department do not want to be troubled. I do not see any difficult why this Amendment should not be accepted.

10.6 p.m.

Mr. WISE: If I understand rightly the argument of the Secretary of State, it was that my hon. Friend's fears were unfounded, because a failure to pay was only likely to take place in the event of
the complete breakdown in the administration of any one province. It seems that every safeguard in this Bill is presumably designed in the event of a complete breakdown in any one or all of the Provinces, and I cannot see the argument that there is any less security in making these salaries chargeable to Federal revenue. Let us assume that there is a breakdown in any one province, which is unable to meet its demands. The Federal revenue has a reserve fund out of which to meet these salaries, and in the event of such a breakdown and the Governor having to take over the administration of the province, there is one thing without which he cannot go on and that is the High Court; and it is only reasonable that there should be some provision for the payment of that High Court in the event of the province being unable so to do. Is it not really the fact that pensions are made chargeable on the Federal revenue because it is more likely that the Federal revenue would pay? It does seem only reasonable that the salaries of High Court judges and their pensions should come from the same body. It gives that added security in case of a breakdown, and it does not add any complications worth speaking of to the machinery of payment. It would bring a considerable relief not only to this House but to the people of India, who want to see their courts functioning when their assemblies are not.

Amendment negatived.

10.9 p.m.

Mr. WISE: I beg to move, in page 21, line 35, leave out paragraph (f).
I rise to move this Amendment merely in order to get a little information from the Secretary of State on a point which is not quite clear, I think, to the Committee. The paragraph reads:
the sums payable to His Majesty under this Act out of the revenues of the Federation in respect of the expenses incurred in discharging the functions of the Crown in its relations with Indian States.
All I move this Amendment for is to ask the Government where in this Act there are any sums payable to His Majesty. That is not quite clear.

10.10 p.m.

Miss RATHBONE: Would the right hon. Gentleman also give a further explanation to the Committee as to what is the legitimate source of the
sums which are spent in carrying out the obligations of the Crown? Suppose there is an insurrection in a State and troops are used in putting it down. On whom does the expenditure ultimately fall?

10.11 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: The object of including these sums under paragraph (f) of Clause 33 is to finance the Governor-General when he is acting as the representative of the Crown in any case where he is exercising direct relations with the Indian States under paramountcy. The result of omitting the paragraph would be to deprive His Majesty's Representative in India in direct relations with the Indian States of any source of supply for dealing with the States. It would mean that he would have nothing to finance the Political Department, nothing with which to exercise any of those functions which His Majesty's Representative, vis-a-vis the States would probably have to exercise on certain occasions. I sincerely hope that the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Wise) will not press his Amendment. If he has any difficulty about the phraseology, it is meant to imply that these sums, which will be non-votable, will be given out of the Federal revenue to the Viceroy as Representative of the Crown.

Viscount WOLMER: I understand from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that in effect the object of the paragraph is to finance the political department of the Viceroy.

Mr. BUTLER: That is perfectly correct. But this head will also cover any expenditure which occurs in discharging functions of the Crown in its relations to the Indian States.

Miss RATHBONE: May I ask the hon. Gentleman kindly to answer my question? Does the money that is spent under this paragraph come out of the funds of the Federation or is an Indian State obliged to pay the cost of intervention that has been made necessary in the affairs of the State?

Mr. BUTLER: The funds would come from Federal revenue, out of which the Governor-General would be financed for particular purposes involved under this part of the Bill.

Mr. WISE: I do not want to press the Amendment in any way. I merely want to get some information. What sums are payable to His Majesty, and where in the Bill can we find that the Governor-General has any right to exact such sums? I do not for a moment want to deprive him of his political power. I merely want to make quite certain that it is provided somewhere in this Bill that these sums are legally exacted from the Federation.

Mr. BUTLER: As far as I see it, this paragraph gives the requisite power for these sums to be paid to the representative of His Majesty in dealing with subjects which this paragraph provides for, that is, the relations of the Crown with Indian States.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: We ought not to let this matter pass with such very vague general explanations as that. This paragraph provides for the payment to His Majesty of any sum that may be required for the Viceroy to deal with the Indian States, and the Under-Secretary has represented it as if it had nothing more in its purpose than the financing of the Indian political department.

Mr. BUTLER: I said that we must read the actual document before us. If the right hon. Gentleman will refer to it he will see reference to expenses incurred in discharging the functions of the Crown in its relation to the Indian States. They would be covered by this paragraph.

Mr. CHURCHILL: That is the point, but when my hon. Friend made his speech what he dwelt on was keeping the political department going, and what he kept in the background was the discharge of the functions of the Crown in relation to the Indian States. That is the point on which I think the searchlight should be turned. I suppose that if an Indian State is ill-governed and the Rajah misbehaves himself in any way, and coercion has to be applied to him, this is the paragraph from which the fund will be supplied. Is not that so?

Mr. BUTLER indicated assent.

Mr. CHURCHILL: That is so; exactly. If any question of paramountcy arises, this is the paragraph which covers it. Let us have our law right on the subject.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: My right hon. Friend is stating in quite general form that if expenditure was incurred as a result of misgovernment in a State the expenditure necessary would fall on federal revenue. But there might be a levy on the State concerned. We should reimburse the federal revenue out of the State.

Mr. CHURCHILL: My hon. and learned Friend has helped greatly in the discussion. This is a, very important Clause for the Indian Princes, because this paragraph provides the fund from which the means of disciplining them and keeping them in good order in the federal system is to be provided. Suppose that one of the States misbehaves, or the Congress representatives in the Federal Assembly put pressure on the Viceroy, the political department would be put into motion and the pressure would be applied, and the funds for the pressure would come out of this paragraph (f). That is so. I am not saying that it is not desirable. It may be very necessary indeed. But when passing so many clauses with great rapidity we ought to notice all the important points with which we are dealing. The question of paramountcy falls under this sub-section. Questions arising out of paramountcy will be sustained by the funds under this paragraph. Has the Secretary of State seen the declaration of the Maharaja of Bhopal? [HON. MEMBERS: "The Nawab!"] I am not so conversant with these Indian titles as some hon. Members. We are always told that we should never quote French in this House with a French accent. I do not pretend to be versed, like the Private Secretary to the Under-Secretary, in all these details. Has the Under-Secretary read the declaration of the Nawab of Bhopal, in which he says that it is vital and fundamental to his agreement with the Bill that as regards paramountcy there should be an independent tribunal between the paramount Power and the Princes' States?

The CHAIRMAN: I think that is hardly relevant to this discussion.

Mr. CHURCHILL: With great respect I am not using it as a text but only as an incidental illustration and I pass from it rapidly to say that, should a case like this arise, a dispute about paramountcy, it is upon that topic that the fund provided by this subsection would be used.
In a dispute on paramountcy involving the use of coercion the funds would come fro mthis Subsection. Is not that the case?

Mr. BUTLER: I think I have on several occasions told the right hon. Gentleman that all the moneys necessary to the Governor-General for the exercise of his functions as Representative of the Crown will be found under this Subsection.

Mr. CHURCHILL: That is a very nice way of answering my question in the affirmative. I am not objecting. Undoubtedly if the Princes come into the Federation they will have to be subject to severe disciplinary control, and the moneys will have to be found, from federal revenues in the first instance. I agree with the Under-Secretary that later on the expense may be transferred from the federal revenue, and recovered from the delinquent State. There is no reason why that should not happen if such a lamentable situation as has been suggested should arise. I think it well however that we should note these facts. These Clauses and Sub-sections slip through very fast, and people sometimes do not realise what is in them and wake up afterwards with great surprise to find what they have done. Here we have the armoury, the arsenal, in which the means of coercing States and disciplining them are to be found. This is the authority for placing on the federal revenue the means of reducing States to a proper subjection to the federal scheme.

Mr. D. D. REID: If a charge came on the federal revenues for the purpose of coercing a recalcitrant State there might be a levy on the State. I can imagine that, when the relations were more or less indefinite but under this Sub-section what will be the position?

The CHAIRMAN: I think I should point out that that question is one which cannot be answered on this Amendment.

Mr. REID: It seems to me if I may say so with deep respect that it is a question which affects very vitally the vote which we are about to give.

10.23 p.m.

Mr. AMERY: Is not the actual purpose of the Sub-section simply to preserve the position of the Viceroy vis-a-vis the Princes as it is at present, in that sphere
of paramountcy which lies entirely outside the Federal Constitution. What then, is the object of trying to make the flesh of the Princes creep with the idea of the new terrors to which they are to be subject if they should come into the Federation? It seems to me that that is one of the interventions in our debates which have nothing to do with the merits of the Bill but are intended to frighten the Princes.

10.24 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I object altogether to the suggestion of my right hon. Friend. He is always imputing motives. It is a thing which can be done from time to time with delicacy, with courtesy and with moderation, but when it becomes the staple of a right hon. Gentleman's speeches in debate, it occupies a position rather below the general level over which the attention of this Committee should range. This is about the third time to-day that the right hon. Gentleman has dealt with arguments advanced by me by simply saying "Oh, you want to frighten the Princes." I certainly admit, indeed I avow, and glory in the fact, that I should like to give my words of warning and counsel to the Princes to keep clear of this misshapen scheme. I am not afraid of that, and I should be ready to take on my own shoulders the responsibility of persuading them to stand out of it. But to say that because I avow that perfectly legitimate and proper Parliamentary position, the right hon. Gentleman should therefore feel himself absolved from using his fine intellect to provide any arguments at all in regard to the matters under discussion in the Committee, is not a deduction that can be drawn. I wish my right hon. Friend would try to address himself to the arguments instead of simply contenting himself with raising the crudest points of prejudice.

Mr. AMERY: If I did impute any motives, my right hon. Friend glories in the fact. What I was addressing myself to was the fact that the argument he advanced was entirely irrelevant to this Sub-section.

10.26 p.m.

Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNE: I do not impute any motives to my right hon. Friend, but I would ask him what bearing his illustration has on this para-
graph? He gave us an illustration and then dealt with some position that might arise if some far-fetched proposal, about which nobody has heard, was accepted by some future Government of India. As far as I can see, that cannot be an illustration of this paragraph at all. It deals entirely with the position which at present exists between the Crown and the States, and surely it is no illustration of the working of this paragraph to deal with some hypothetical case which might arise if some proposal, which a great many members know nothing about, is at some future time accepted by some future Government of India,

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is not true to say that this deals with only the present-position. It deals with the position which will be created when the Federal Government is brought into existence. There is no such Government in existence now, so that it does not deal with the present but the future position, which is the position we are being asked to create.

Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: The position as between the Viceroy and the States is exactly the present position, that is to say, the powers of the Viceroy in connection with the States continue after federation as they exist now.

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, because new obligations are to be undertaken by those who sign the Instrument of Accession and the enforcement of the whole of the complicated process of new obligations will be met under paragraph (f) of this Clause. I agree that funds must be provided, but very large funds will probably be necessary owing to the extensive disagreements which will occur. All I am saying is that as we pass along through the long corridors of this Bill we ought to mark at each stage the significant passages, and this is one of the most significant.

10.28 p.m.

Mr. WISE: I do not want to appear unduly intrusive or over inquisitive in this Committee, but really the first question I asked has not yet been answered. I would withdraw the Amendment if I could get the information. This Subsection of the Clause distinctly says:
The following expenditure shall be expenditure charged on the revenues of the Federation.
It goes on in paragraph (f) to say:
the sums payable to His Majesty under this Act out of the revenues of the Federation, etc.
What I want to know is what sums and where are they mentioned in the Bill? It may be due to my stupidity, but it is a long and complicated Bill, and I do not know what sums are referred to. It is no good saying that they are the sums payable under this paragraph because clearly they are sums payable under some other Clause of the Bill, which I am unable to find. That is the only information for which I am asking, and if I can get it I shall be only too pleased to withdraw the Amendment.

10.30 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I think I can help my hon. Friend. If he will look at Sub-section (2) of Clause 3 he will find it stated that:
His Majesty's Representative for the exercise of the functions of the Crown in its relations with Indian States is appointed by His Majesty in like manner and has such powers and duties in connection with the exercise of those functions (not being powers or duties conferred or imposed by or under this Act on the Governor-General) as His Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.
Then if my hon. Friend will look at Clause 143 he will see that it reads:
There shall be paid to His Majesty by the Federation in each year the sums required to defray the expenses of His Majesty incurred in discharging the functions of the Crown in its relations with Indian States, including any payments in respect of any customary allowances to members of the family or servants of any former Ruler of any territories in India.
The scheme is: As far as Federation is concerned, that is dealt with by the Bill, but the relations of the Crown and Indian States outside the Federation continues as now, with the payment of a sum of money each year. That is for the expenses which come under paragraph (f).

Mr. WISE: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for the explanation, and in view of the fact that I have the elucidation for which I asked I should like to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

10.32 p.m.

Miss RATHBONE: May I ask—

The CHAIRMAN: Order. Is the hon. Lady aware that if she insists on speak-
ing now leave to withdraw cannot be given?

Miss RATHBONE: Am I not entitled to ask a question before leave to withdraw is given?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Lady has not answered my question. I asked whether she was aware of something in order that she might know the position—that if she insists on speaking leave to withdraw the Amendment is refused.

Miss RATHBONE: I do not think my question can possibly detain the Committee for more than a few moments, and I suppose that a request for leave to withdraw the Amendment can be repeated.

The CHAIRMAN: I have already informed the hon. Lady that that is not the case, and that is the reason I asked her the question. If she insists on speaking leave cannot be given to withdraw the Amendment.

Miss RATHBONE: I am sorry, but I think this is a very important Clause, and that the Committee are entitled to be given the means of understanding it before they vote on it or decide not to vote. We have been told by the Under-Secretary, in effect, that this Clause makes no difference, that it really preserves the present position with regard to Paramountcy. I would point out that it does create a new position, because the expenses of a native State cannot now be paid out of the revenues of the Federation seeing that there is no Federation. I want to know whether this Sub-section involves any new charges on the inhabitants of British India. Who pays the cost of carrying out the functions of Paramountcy in regard to the Indian States? It appears to me to be a serious matter if the expenditure required for carrying out those functions, which affect the States in regard to this country but not in regard to British India, is to be borne by the taxpayers of British India.

The CHAIRMAN: That point does not arise on this Amendment. It is merely a question of how certain funds are to be provided—as we should say here, charged upon the Consolidated Fund.

Miss RATHBONE: Is it not legitimate to ask whether this Clause involves
charges in that respect, because clearly the expenditure was not previously borne out of the funds of a Federation which did not then exist. Is it not legitimate before we put a charge on the Federation to ask by whom that charge is at present borne? Then I would ask whether it is possible for questions to be asked in the Legislature about these matters.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I give the hon. Lady the answer for which she asks. It is that no extra charges are involved.

Miss RATHBONE: They are now borne by British India?

Mr. BUTLER: Yes, they are now borne by the revenues of India.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 35.—(Authentication of Schedule of authorised expenditure.)

10.37 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I beg to move,
in page 23, line 25, to leave out "but shall not," and to insert "and shall." This Amendment has relation to Subsection (2), which reads:
The schedule so authenticated shall be laid before both Chambers but shall not be open to discussion or vote therein.
The object of the Amendment is quite clear. The Schedule referred to is that which the Governor-General will authenticate in regard to sums provided to enable him to discharge his special responsibilities, among other things. I beg the Government to notice that I am not at this point urging that the Assembly should have the power to vote upon these sums, but that they should have the right to discuss the sums that they are called upon to vote. I need not at this juncture traverse the ground again as to the amount of money which is involved, or the serious issue which is involved for British India generally. There is the reservation in regard to defence. British India will have a very real interest in the amount of money to be spent upon defence. Defence is a reserved subject,
and, as I understand it, the Governor-General will be able to certify or authenticate his requisition in regard to it, and it is referred to in the Schedule.
It is a matter of first-class importance that the representatives of British India, shall have the right to review this demand upon them. For the sake of argument—I am not conceding the point—let us say that they will not have the right to vote on the matter; surely it is elementary that they should have the right to discuss it and to express their opinion as to how far the sum demanded of them is a demand that should properly be made. The amount of money which they are called upon to provide for defence governs the amount left to them which they can control for expenditure on the social services. If the Government are not prepared to give them the right to vote on the matter, they should at least give them the right to discuss it, because those things are of primary importance to British India.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: I think the hon. Member's object is already met. If he turns to the method for approving Demands for Grants, which is set out in Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Clause 34, he will see that there is nothing in the BUI which would stop discussion on the important subjects to which he has referred. The schedule, on the other hand, is the very last stage of authentication in the process of gaining supply in India. It is the final budget statement as authenticated by the Govern or-General after he has dealt with the result of the demands for grants. The purpose of the authentication is merely to give a final consolidated statement, for audit purposes, of the expenditure which has already been authorised. The hon. Member realises that the preliminary stages will have taken place, in which the sort of discussion that he envisages will have been provided for. He will realise, also, that in India the time given for supply, owing to climatic and other reasons, has to be appreciably shorter than in this country, and from that problem arise many of the difficulties in connection with supply which I am sure he and I equally realise. I hope, therefore, that he will not press the Amendment.

10.42 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Surely the hon. Gentleman has forgotten one thing, and that is that this Schedule will, in certain circumstances, include sums which have not been granted. Where the Chamber has not assented to a demand for grants, or has reduced the amount of demand for the grant, the Schedule will contain the full sum demanded by the Governor-General under the proviso to Clause 35, and it will be the first announcement by the Governor-General that he insists, for reasons that may seem good to him, upon having certain sums the grant of which has been refused by the Federal Legislature. I should have thought that in these circumstances it would have been wise to give the Federal Legislature the opportunity of discussing the difference and the insistence upon these increases, and, indeed, to give the Governor-General, through his official representatives, the opportunity of explaining the object of and the necessity for these additions. As I understand it—I may be wrong—under the proviso, if the Chambers have not assented to any demand, or have assented subject to a reduction, the Governor-General may, if necessary, include such additional amount in the Schedule. That will be a sum which has been included after a refusal. The Secretary of State pointed out to us a short time ago, on Clause 33 (2), the wisdom of the matter being formally and properly discussed rather than being brought up by some sort of side-wind. Would it not be much wiser, where such a difference has occurred, to give just that some opportunity for discussion here which the Secretary of State said it was so wise and so necessary to preserve under Clause 33?

10.45 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: I think that probably this difficulty arises from the point of sanction. This schedule does not give sanctions either to the supply voted by the Assembly or to supply which the Governor-General himself decrees as necessary for the carrying out of the specific purposes referred to in this matter. The sanction in one case is derived from the vote of the Legislature, and in the other case from orders from
the Governor-General on items which by statute are under his control. Therefore, when the Governor-General has issued these orders, the fact that he has issued them will become known publicly through the Assembly, and therefore the schedule is not the first occasion upon which the Assembly will learn of the sums which the Governor-General has felt bound to include in the general budget. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman would like to give a further opportunity for discussion, but I must remind him there would already have been one opportunity at least for discussion, and, if there had been a joint session, the subject would probably have been mentioned again, and, in view of the necessity in India of avoiding complexity in the conduct of financial business, I would ask him not to press the Amendment, because I think that the objects which he has in mind are fully in view, and that what he has said about sanction and publicity will be met.

10.47 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Either I completely misunderstood this proviso or else the hon. Gentleman must be wrong. If I am wrong, perhaps he will be good enough to explain to me where I am wrong. It says in the proviso:
if the Chambers have not assented to any demand for a grant or have assented subject to a reduction.
That is the grant the origin of which is the proposal by the Governor-General in the Legislature. He proposes for some service, not a reserve service, a sum of £100,000. The Legislature says, "We can only give you £50,000," and he thereupon says, "In my opinion your refusal or reduction of this sum will affect the discharge of my responsibilities." Let me take roads as an example. He says, "Your refusal to spend £100,000 on roads will affect the duties charged and my responsibility as regards defence, and therefore I propose, although it is not a special responsibility, expenditure which will include in the schedule the additional £50,000 which you have refused me." It will never be known up to the moment of refusal that the Governor-General is going to say, "This is the thing which affects my special responsi-
bility." It is only after the refusal, when he comes to examine the sufficiency of the reduced sum that has been granted that to his advisers he may say," This sum will not be enough for our special responsibility. £100,000 would have been or £75,000 would have been, but £50,000 is not. Now, in my schedule for the first time, I am going to announce that this extra sum must be granted."
That is the first intimation that the Legislature or anyone else will get that, because of special responsibility in this area not covered by special responsibilities, the Governor-General must insist upon more money being provided than the Legislature are willing to grant. That situation having arisen, the hon. Gentleman says, "I am not going to allow it to be discussed," and surely that is an extraordinary position to produce between the Governor-General and the Legislature. You are giving him this power to step in in an unexpected way, and then you are to say the Legislature may not discuss it, may not even ask for an explanation, because the Governor-General may not have representatives there. The matter cannot be mentioned in the House, though, of course, if necessary, discussions can be raised on it. I suggest that it is a very dangerous thing in circumstances such as these to try immediately to muzzle the House. I do ask the hon. Gentleman at least to reconsider this matter in the light of what I have put before him, and to see if some arrangement cannot be made by which an opportunity of discussion of these difficulties can be given.

10.51 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will realise that we will, of course, consider any matter to which importance is attached. My right hon. Friend has shown that disposition throughout these debates. I would call the attention of my hon. and learned Friend to the fact that when he speaks about the nature of a surprise and the first opportunity that anybody has of knowing what the Governor-General is going to do when he authenticates this schedule with his signature, the whole of the matter has been discussed by the Assembly or the Council of State or both. When there is
refusal to make grants for which the Governor-General has asked, the time must come when the Governor-General in his discretion has to exercise his own responsibility. Suppose there has been full discussion, and, we will assume, refusal, then the time comes where refusal has to be made good or not, and the Governor-General then takes responsibility upon himself. If the Governor-General is to say to the Assembly or the Council of State, "You have refused, and I am now about to exercise my responsibility: you had better consider your refusal," I think that might be a very undesirable relationship. I am sure that all these matters will be most carefully considered by my right hon. Friend, who is unable to be here at the moment, though I venture to think that the two Clauses are in the form that they should be.

10.53 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Member for his kindness. Though we are still not quite convinced, in view of the undertaking given we shall be happy to withdraw the Amendment, leaving ourselves free to raise the matter again.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 37.—(Special provisions as to financial Bills.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Viscount WOLMER: May I draw your attention to the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Middleton (Sir N. Stewart Sandeman) and myself—in page 24, line 19, at the end to insert:
Provided that the Governor-General shall not recommend the introduction or moving of any Bill or amendment making provision for imposing or increasing any duty of customs on goods imported into the Federation which are consigned from and produced or manufactured in the United Kingdom if the effect of such Bill or amendment if enacted and brought into operation would be to impose on such goods a higher duty of customs than the duty for the time being imposed on similar goods imported into the Federation which are
consigned from and produced or manufactured in any other country.
May I ask if it is to be called?

The CHAIRMAN: No, the Amendment is quite obviously in the wrong place.

Mr. ATTLEE: Is it the intention to call the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell)?

The CHAIRMAN: No.

Viscount WOLMER: I understood that this Amendment was going to be selected. Do I understand from what you have said that this point could be raised later?

The CHAIRMAN: On the contrary. I informed the noble Lord's colleague it would not be. The Noble Lord has an Amendment which is more suitable on Clause 100 though I am not at all sure that it will be selected. My present idea is that these points can only be properly met by a new Clause. At any rate this is not the time to raise them.

Sir H. CROFT: Shall we have no opportunity of discussing this very vital question?

The CHAIRMAN: Certainly, but most obviously not on this Clause.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: Before we leave this Clause I should like to call attention to one or matters arising therefrom. The Clause deals with the introduction of legislation dealing with taxation in the Federal Legislature, and we find that provision is made for the introduction of a Bill under paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) on the recommendation of the Governor-General. It is provided that the Governor-General shall make a recommendation for the introduction of such a Bill making such provision and that the Bill shall not be introduced into the Council of State. That leaves us with this procedure that a Bill or any amendment making provision for imposing or increasing any tax, whether local or general, and so on, shall be introduced on the recommendation of the Governor-General into the Assembly.
That is a position which is analogous to the position in our own practice, where the House of Commons is the assembly for the introduction of Money Bills, and we are recommended to provide supplies for His Majesty in a variety of ways. The procedure proposed for India is tantamount to our procedure, except that this Clause does not lay down the procedure in detail for dealing with a Money Bill.
We desired, without making direct reference to our Amendment, to make an Amendment in order to be quite sure that the practice in the Federal Government in India should approximate to the practice in this country. We should like to have some assurance that the Government will give consideration to the point we wish to make, namely, that when a Money Bill has been introduced into the Assembly and has secured passage by the ordinary procedure laid down in the previous Clauses, it shall not be amended by the Council of State, which we regard as the non-representative element of the Federal Legislature. We wish to safeguard the lower House in this direction, and we appeal to the Government to give further consideration to the matter and to give us an assurance that the Assembly, having been invited to receive a Measure on the recommendation of the Governor-General, and having considered and approved such a Measure, that that Bill shall not be altered by the will of the other House. If we get that assurance we shall not divide against the Clause

10.59 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: If I have not misunderstood the practice of this House, we are in substance asking that the Legislative Assembly in India should do as we do. Substantially, all requests for expenditure are requests which in form and in substance come from His Majesty through his Ministers, and in that we are asking that what has been the almost immemorial practice in the United Kingdom, and which has worked exceedingly well, shall be the practice in India when they have a form of government which to some extent approximates to ours.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: The point of the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) is
that we should not give in the Bill equality of power on questions of supply as between the two Houses. We have Iliad a previous discussion on this point this evening and I do not want to disturb the Committee by repeating the arguments I then used and therefore I hope my hon. Friend will excuse me if I am brief in my reply. In paragraph 215 the Joint Select Committee attach importance to this provision, and to put it shortly we think it is essential in view of the necessity for a strong central Government and sound finance for both Houses to have equal power in relation to matters of supply. I am sorry to have to give such a negative answer but in this matter we must adhere to the views (expressed and give both Houses equal power.

CLAUSE 38.—(Rules of Procedure.)

11.2 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: I beg to move, in page 25, line 6, at the end, to insert:
(c) for securing that no member of either Chamber who is a representative of a Federated State shall be entitled to vote on any matter mentioned in the Federal Legislative List, or on any other matter within the competence of the Federal Legislature, if such matter has been reserved to the competence of that State by the Instrument of Accession of that State.
We have been discussing many Amendments dealing with comparatively minor, although important, matters, but the Committee will agree that this Clause demands our searching examination. I feel that an apology is almost due to the Princes of India that we should be discussing this Clause. They have told us that they cannot accept the Bill yet we go on discussing matters which affect them very definitely. The reason for the Amendment is clear. It is designed to get rid of an extraordinary anomaly in the Bill under which representatives of the federating States are allowed to vote on matters affecting the Provinces, while the representatives of the Provinces have no corresponding power with regard to the States. That is an anomaly which has struck many hon. Members. It is something entirely new. It is a violation of the principle that there should be no representation without taxation.
Under the Bill we have the extraordinary situation that representatives of the States are able to interfere in matters for which they have no responsibility so far as taxation is concerned, whilst the representatives of the other bodies are in an entirely different position. If in this House we had an arrangement by which Scottish Members could vote on questions like education in England when Scotland had decided to have no education at all, you would have a similar position. I cannot believe that such a system is going to last in India. It is so clearly unjust that I cannot conceive that it can stand for any length of time, and I hope the Government will give very sympathetic attention to the Amendment, because clearly the Clause is establishing a precedent which it is almost impossible to justify.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Is it not a precedent which has actually been set by the presence here of North of Ireland Members, of which no one thinks of complaining?

Sir H. CROFT: The right hon. Gentleman knows much more about these things than I do, but I was under the impression that the Members from Northern Ireland had to pay precisely the same taxation as the people of this country. They have an equal voice and taxation with representation. In India you will have an entirely different situation. When I was considering this subject, I said to myself, How contrary it is to the whole principle here, where you have separate communities living in Northern Ireland who come under the aegis of this Government and bear a common burden with the taxpayers of this country.

11.6 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I reply very shortly, following the example set by the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself. There are in the practice of the Imperial Parliament here certain anomalies which bear some similarity to the difficulty which the hon. and gallant Member has experienced in the future presence of State's representatives in the Indian Assembly. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) has expressed one, and there is another in the presence in our midst
of, I will not say too many, but a great number of Scottish Members, who take part in our deliberations and upon whose point of view and upon whose interests we very often deliberate and vote, and vice versâ. There are these anomalies in this Parliament, and there will undoubtedly be a certain anomaly in the presence of States representatives taking part on occasion on points of view and issues primarily of interest to British India.
This subject has been considered throughout all the discussions of the Round Table Conferences and all the occasions when these matters have been discussed between representatives of British India and representatives of the States, and it may help the Committee if I give some idea of the conclusion to which the various minds that have considered this problem have come during the last several years. The general conclusion has been that it would be almost impossible to frame any such provision as the hon. and gallant Member suggests, and that it would be undesirable to do anything which would result in differentiating the functions and powers of the different categories of members in the Federal Legislature. The general conclusion come to is that we should settle this matter in the proper and true British spirit of a convention, rather than by trying to come to any artificial device to achieve the desired end, because we do not believe it would do so. The Princes and their representatives have always been against any artificial suggestion by which this desired end could be achieved, and they have always insisted that on any matter on which the future fate of the Government, for example, was concerned their representatives should have the right to decide upon the future of that Government. That is one of the practical difficulties which arise and make us believe that the best way to deal with this complicated matter is upon the lines of a convention rather than upon the lines of some provision in the Act.

Miss RATHBONE: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the British Indian delegation agreed with that conclusion?

Mr. BUTLER: I think they were fully aware of the difficulties and acquiesced in the view that a convention was desirable to try to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion on this subject.

Miss RATHBONE: Did they not wish the convention incorporated in the Act?

Sir H. CROFT: Surely the hon. Gentleman would not be guided by the representatives of India when the Legislative Assembly itself is of no account?

11.10 p.m.

Lord SCONE: The Under-Secretary of State has stated certain objections to our proposals, objections which in places have reason behind them. I suggest that if he investigates a little more closely he will find that whatever anomalies exist in our Constitution have no relation to the anomalies he and his friends propose to set up in the Indian Constitution. "Without wishing to go into matters with which we are all familiar here, there is a certain amount of reciprocity in the proceedings of this House and of the Parliament of Northern Ireland and complete reciprocity between the relations of Scotland and England. Here we are proposing to set up a strange form of legislature in which, while the representatives of Indian States are to be permitted to inquire into the most private affairs of British India, the representatives of British India are to have absolutely no counter say in the administration of the native States. It is not to be expected that the Indian Princes would submit for one moment to any such interference, but it is skating rather lightly over a very important question to say, in a somewhat airy way, that all this can be settled in the good old British style of a convention. We are not dealing here with a convention of English-speaking peoples, but with a vast number of different races, speaking different tongues, with different religions and having a wholly different outlook. I suggest that the Under-Secretary would do well to investigate the matter much more closely before brushing aside our Amendment in a somewhat cavalier fashion.

11.12 p.m.

Viscount WOLMER: Had the House not been exceedingly tired and jaded, the Under-Secretary would have given us
a speech that was a little more adequate to the importance of this matter, because we are here up against one of the bedrock difficulties in which the Government have involved themselves in the whole of their federation plan. I was amazed to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) cite the example of Northern Ireland as a precedent, and the Under-Secretary talk about the position of Scotland. There is no sort of analogy at all. What Acts of Parliament have Scotland contracted out of? What Act passed by this House does not apply to Scotland? [An HON. MEMBER: "Housing!"] This House has the power to legislate for Scotland, and it does legislate for Scotland, This House can make any Act it likes applicable to Scotland. In all respects Scottish Members are in exactly the same position as English Members, although they do not happen to be so numerous. Therefore, there is no difference between England and Scotland in this respect. If you want an analogy for the plan the Government are pressing, you must visualise a situation in which it was a condition of the Act of Union that this Parliament should not be competent to legislate for Scotland in regard to, let us say, whiskey—some subject that we could not touch. To make the analogy real, take Income Tax. That is going to be the case in regard to all the States. Assume that it was a condition of the Act of Union with Scotland that this House could not impose Income Tax on Scotland. There you have the sort of position which will arise under Federation; and it will not only be in regard to such vital matters as Income Tax, but it will be in regard to all the reserved subjects. That is a wholly different situation from what prevails in regard to Scotland and Northern Ireland. My right hon. and hon. Friends are talking absolute' nonsense and throwing dust in the eyes of the Committee in producing analogies of that sort.
This is really a very important matter. Under the Federation you are going to have representatives of the States coming down and voting, perhaps turning the whole division, on subjects, when it will be beyond the competence of the Federal Legislature to bring those matters into their States—voting on questions which, under the Instrument of Accession, under the Constitution, cannot possibly affect their States. What will the rest of India
have to say about that? Will British India regard that as a just settlement? Everyone who has studied this question knows quite well that British India does not regard that as just. When Bills touch important questions and when the division of opinion is evenly matched and the votes of the States make all the difference in the division lobby and decide whether the Bills are passed or not, the most intense feeling is bound to arise. You are going to have one of the great causes of cleavage between British India and the States in future.
By putting the States in this position I have always felt that you were putting them in an impossible position. No wonder the Princes fear the result. If they follow the convention they know-that great pressure will be put upon them by the interested parties. They will be told, "Oh, you have the power of the vote in the division lobby. If you will not help us in this matter we will take jolly good care to get our own back from you on some other question." Those are the elementary principles of political pressure with which we are not at all unfamiliar even in this Parliament. Therefore it will be quite impossible, unless there is something in the Constitution, for the Princes to keep out of that very invidious position. They will be given the power to vote on questions which do not affect their States in the least. A convention will be no protection; the pressure which is bound to be put on them when feeling is running very high will force them into the one Lobby or the other. Millions represented in British India will say that the Constitution is being worked in a very unjust way. You will not make a success of your Constitution if it is founded on a sense of injustice. If the politically-minded classes of India who are represented in the Assemblies feel that the Constitution is fundamentally unjust as between Indian and Indian that is bound to be a source of great weakness.
This is one of the most important parts of the Bill. We are in this position simply because the Government are trying to do the impossible. You have not got the elements out of which you can build a real Federation. Therefore you are forced to these makeshifts, which will not and cannot stand the test of time. You will be putting the Princes in a most
invidious position. Such an arrangement cannot possibly work without the gravest friction. I think the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) has suggested the only possible safeguard. I do not think and I am sure he does not think, that it is adequate but, as far as it goes, it is the only way of dealing with the question. It is no defence to say that it has been found impossible to frame rules which would operate. It is only impossible in the sense that the Government are attempting a task which cannot possibly be carried out but subject to that, I suggest that the Amendment indicates the only way of rescuing the Princes from a very serious and difficult position

11.22 p.m.

Mr. AMERY: I venture to submit that the position of Northern Ireland is not so dissimilar from that of the Princes, in this connection, as my Noble Friend has suggested. Under the Northern Ireland Constitution a very wide field of legislation is reserved to the Northern Ireland Parliament, in which this House is precluded from interfering. Yet representatives of Northern Ireland do come into this House and exercise the right to vote and speak on these same subjects—

Sir H. CROFT: But the right hon. Gentleman will admit that they pay taxes?

Mr. AMERY: I am dealing at the moment with the question of legislation apart from that of taxation. The Amendment is concerned with special points of legislation on which the Princes may reserve their rights. At any rate, some anomaly does exist in that respect, here in this House, and we have not, so far, found it a great difficulty. There are other kindred anomalies to that which I have indicated and if they arouse feeling, it generally happens that those who benefit by the anomaly are pleased, while those who suffer, feel injured. When the Prayer Book Measure was defeated by the votes of Scottish and other Members to whom it did not apply, all who sympathised with the majority were well content and I dare say the same thing would apply—

Viscount WOLMER: And that precise fact has been given as the reason and is
the reason why the decision of the House of Commons in that matter is being flouted in practically three-fourths of the parish churches of the country at the present moment.

HON. MEMBERS: No.

Sir JOHN HASLAM: That is not true.

Mr. AMERY: I do not propose to enter into a discussion with my Noble Friend on that point. But I venture to say that these anomalies, affecting certain items out of the long Federal list, are not going to prove so difficult as has been suggested. In any case, our own experience in this House—and I presume it will also be the experience in the legislature in India—is that bodies are formed which support a Government in its general policy, and you could not possibly work Parliamentary institutions under a system which would preclude Members of Parliament from giving votes which might affect the life and future of a Government. Therefore, as between the two difficulties, which are inherent in the situation, I submit that it is desirable that Members of the Parliament should remain free to support a Government on all matters essential to the life of the Government. It is possible that in the ordinary course a certain discretion will be used by representatives of States as to refraining from voting on occasions which are immaterial to the Government on matters which States have declared to be reserved to themselves. If we are not prepared to face that issue we are really saying that no federation in India will be possible because under the complex and difficult situation in India we shall never get the Princes to agree to an absolutely uniform scheme of federal legislation.

11.26 p.m.

Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: I agree with my Noble Friend that this is a difficult matter, but I assure him that it is a question which has been considered for a long time. I would ask him and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) to refer to the Federal legislative list.
If they will look, for example, at such items as No. 7, posts and telegraphs; No. 25, aircraft and air navigation; No. 28, copyright, inventions, etc.; and particularly No. 42, duties of Customs, they will see that it is impossible to say that the representatives of the States in the Legislative Assembly shall have no chance of voting on such matters, which must affect their States. It would be impossible to have a solution which prevented them from taking any part in considering these matters. The probabilities are, judging from the discussions that took place previously, that a convention will arise under which, except in matters in which the States have a definite interest, they would not take part; but, if it be a question of choice between two evils, it seems clear that we cannot exclude the States from taking part and voting on matters in which they have a vital interest.

11.28 p.m.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I want to make reference to what was said by the Noble Lord, who emphasised the anomalies arising under this Clause. That is admitted. The Bill, of course, has anomalies from beginning to end. We are creating a new constitution in circumstances such as the world has never seen before, and no purpose is served by anyone denying that there are anomalies. The only thing I would say is that there is no anomaly in the Bill which is equal to the anomaly of this country continuing to govern India for generations to come. The Indian looks upon the government of India by this country as the main anomaly. I want to deal with two points which the Noble Lord put forward. He asked the Committee to adopt the Amendment on two grounds. First, he said that circumstances may arise when the Princes will take a vote which will antagonise British India. I think that, if the Princes' representatives find themselves face to face with a vote which is likely to have that result, they as men of common sense will refrain from casting a vote which will bring odium upon their States. Under the convention, the States' representatives will not, by casting their votes,
rouse the antagonism of the rest of the country. The Noble Lord's second point was that we were by this Clause putting the Princes in a most invidious position, and that we were leaving them open to serious pressure. The answer to that is that it has been asked for by the Princes themselves.

Viscount WOLMER: Oh!

Mr. FOOT: I did not know that that was disputed. All through, as I understood the discussions, and I have had a fair opportunity of hearing what the representatives—

Viscount WOLMER: I apologise to my hon. Friend for an involuntary exclamation which escaped me, but I wondered how long we were to be told that federation was necessary because the Princes were pressing for it?

Mr. FOOT: I was not saying anything of them. The Noble Lord occupied the time of the Committee usefully in submitting the point that we were by this Clause putting the Princes in a position where great pressure could be brought to bear on them, and opening serious difficulties. I say the answer to that is that the Rulers' representatives have all along asked that this general power should be given to their representatives. The request has come from them, and they are well advised in these matters and capable of defending their own interests. It is a very reasonable request when we consider that we cannot allow the Federal Government to be met by an adverse vote week after week, which may affect the credit of that Government and with it affect the position of the Princes. In those circumstances are their representatives to be denied any power to resist such an attack upon a Government which they may wish to maintain? Admitting that there are anomalies, I think that any other solution would create more anomalies. It is a question of balancing the position to see on which side there are the more anomalies. The whole question, which has occupied the attention of the Committee for only a few minutes, was discussed for month after month during the past four years, and the solution eventually arrived at, inadequate as it may be, met with no protest that I know of on the part of any of the British
delegates—whatever may be their individual views there was no essential protest. I think this is the method that creates the fewest anomalies and helps to assure the most suitable Government at the centre, and for that reason, in spite of the effective arguments of the Noble Lord, I shall support the Government and resist the Amendment.

11.33 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Government are to be congratulated on the exuberant character of the support they have received on this Amendment from the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot). So far as I could follow his argument, he said that what was proposed was very bad, but any other alternative would be even worse. "This is full of anomalies, but anything else would have been fuller still." Then why do it? Here is a system obviously illogical, irrational, awkward, inconvenient, cumbrous, failing at every point to give satisfaction to those for whom it is designed, and causing innumerable points of friction in its day to day work. Why go on with it? "Why break your necks over this federal system?

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Why not smash the whole Bill?

Mr. CHURCHILL: That is not what I say. That is the anarchistic method of the hon. Member. "Ah," he says to us, "why do you attempt to discuss these great matters? We have considered them on the Committee." He has settled it all for us. But, you know, we are still the House of Commons. We are much more important than the Joint Select Committee. We are superior to them. We put them in their proper place. We review their work. We descry the many defects in their labours. We point out the inconsistencies and the absurdities of the project with which they have finally confronted us. It is no use the hon. Member coming here and saying, "Ought you to presume to interfere? You can put your trust in the Joint Select Committee." This is the old dilemma which faced Mr. Gladstone. I am sure the hon. Member will like a reference to Mr. Gladstone. He is familiar with his career and knows perfectly well that this is the old dilemma that faced him on the Irish question of Members with seats in Parliament on the
basis of in and out voting. Are they to vote on all topics or are they to vote on some? That is the real issue. Because it is an old dilemma it does not follow that it has ever been satisfactorily solved. There are many riddles of the world which have never been satisfactorily solved. If they were, I suppose the world would come to an end. When one is solved, another presents itself.
In this ease, all the dilemmas and anomalies are brought before us in the most acute form. Here you have the Princes coming in on a variety of Instruments of Accession, some on a limited liability principle, some going the whole hog, and all taking the same out of the federal pot. It is abhorrent and repulsive to the human mind, it grates on the core of reason; no one can bear a thing like that. One of the most profound ideas of life is that you can take no more out of it than you put into it. Here are these Princes, who are to come in with every kind of reservation for themselves, and at the same time are to sprawl broadly over the entire politics of British India.

Miss RATHBONE: Hear, hear!

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am very glad to have the hon. Lady's agreement in that progressive sentiment. I ask the Government the question which I asked at the beginning. Is it worth while going on with this when it is such a very bad thing, when the confusion and the worry are so great, and when everybody is asking you not to do so, everybody in India and everybody at home? I am afraid that the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) is almost the sole supporter of the Bill. When we come to look upon the support for the Clause and the federal system which hangs upon it, it is the Liberals, represented by the hon. Member for Bodmin, who show the only enthusiasm. There are two or three unfortunate Ministers who have burnt their fingers in this business and do not know how to get the sting out of them. It is a most dismal affair, and, if the Government had the sense and the manhood to out themselves adrift from it, they would stand erect, freed from the cruel and crushing burden, relieved from an infection which, if they do not take the most stringent methods of isolation and inoculation, will prove fatal to their life.

11.38 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: In all our Debates, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) has expressed his dislike on very broad lines. He has described Ministers as having burnt their fingers; he seems to have forgotten that he was once in a position in which he often burnt his fingers. I daresay he would be very glad to be in a position to burn them again. When he described the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) as the only supporter of the Bill, that was a rather unkind cut at my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) and suggests the reason why he was indignant this evening. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook is not an insignificant Member of the Committee, and we are entitled to claim the advantage of his great authority and experience for what we are doing.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I gladly concede that point.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to what I am sure was in the minds of a great many people who have expressed it in and out of the House. He remembers the history of the controversies and the Debates which took place upon Mr. Gladstone's proposals; let me remind him that it is not the Government who have proposed to introduce these difficulties into the Bill, but the Amendment. He and his friends are getting into the bog into which Mr. Gladstone fell when he proposed in-and-out procedure, which everyone recognised, after full Debate, made nonsense of that part of the proposals of the Home Rule Bill. I do not think it was altogether fair criticism—I do not suggest that it was meant to be unfair—of the hon. Member for Bodmin to suggest that he said that the proposals in the Bill were bad and that these other proposals were only slightly worse. I think the hon. Member for Bodmin recognised, as any fair person does, that there are some inconveniences, and no doubt some anomalies, in particular proposals. But there are very few perfect things in this imperfect world, and it would be the negation of common sense to make a thing worse merely because it happens not to be perfect.
Perhaps I might suggest a few common-sense considerations to the Committee in
connection with this proposal. The Under-Secretary has mentioned some of the points. I would suggest to the Committee that if they look at the matter dispassionately they will come to the conclusion that it is not at all likely that these States representatives will take a very great interest in affairs that do not concern the States which they represent. It is not in their interest that they should interfere. It is much more likely that they will leave those matters which do not concern the States to those persons whom they do concern. But, if this proposal were carried, it would have the effect that it would certainly interfere with the cohesion and with the unity of the Chamber itself, it would make an opportunity for an attack upon the Ministry which would be selected by those persons who would realise where certain supporters of the Government were unable to vote, it would make the whole atmosphere an unreal one; and I venture to think it is much better on the whole that we should allow the representatives of the States to support the Ministry with their votes when occasion requires, and to use the common sense with which, I suppose, we may allow them to be endowed, as well as our-selves in deciding upon what matters they will use their votes, or their influence, or their counsel.
It is clear, of course, as the hon. Member has said, that the Committee must decide this question for themselves, apart from the fact that other bodies like Round Table Conferences, Joint Select Committees and so on have dealt with it in the past, I am not sure he was going to suggest that we were not to decide. I am very glad to recognise that my right hon. Friend thinks that the Committee should decide. Earlier he seemed to throw scorn on our proceedings because there were 200 Members who would troop in to support the Government from other portions of the House; now he agrees that the Committee have to decide this question; so I venture to think the Committee may, like wise people, attach some importance to the fact that a great many people have already considered this question, that they have given time to its consideration, and that they have arrived at certain conclusions. The question now is whether those conclusions are on the whole reasonable and wise ones for the Committee to uphold.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 61; Noes, 200.

Division No. 95.]
AYES.
[11.45 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Gardner, Benjamin Walter
McEntee, Valentine L.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Greene, William P. C.
Mainwaring, William Henry


Banfield, John William
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Milner, Major James


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Nunn, William


Broadbent, Colonel John
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Parkinson, John Allen


Burnett, John George
Graves, Thomas E.
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cape, Thomas
Grundy, Thomas W.
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Carver, Major William H.
Hartington, Marquess of
Somerset, Thomas


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hepworth, Joseph
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Cleary, J. J.
Jenkins, Sir William
Taylor. Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Tinker, John Joseph


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Wells, Sydney Richard


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Kimball, Lawrence
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Daggar, George
Lawson, John James
Wilmot, John


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Wise, Alfred R.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughtan)
Logan, David Gilbart
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Donner, P. W.
Lunn, William



Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
McConnell, Sir Joseph
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Lennox-Boyd and Lord Scone.


NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Llewellin, Major John J.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W,)
Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Agnew, Lieut-Com. P. G.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Albery, Irving James
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mabane, William


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Mac Donald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Apsley, Lord
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
McKeag, William


Aske, Sir Robert William
Foot, lsaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
McKie, John Hamilton


Assheton, Ralph
Fraser, Captain Sir Ian
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Fremantle, Sir Francis
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Balniel, Lord
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Goff, Sir Park
Martin, Thomas B.


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Graves, Marjorie
Mason, Cot. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Bernays, Robert
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'. W.)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Grimston, R. V.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Blindell, James
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E,
Milne, Charles


Borodale, Viscount
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Boulton, W. W.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Hamilton, Sir n. W.(Orknev & Z'tl'nd)
Morrison, William Shepherd


Boyce, H. Leslie
Hanbury, Cecil
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid


Brass, Captain Sir William
Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)
O'Connor. Terence James


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Orr Ewing, I. L.


Burghley, Lord
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Palmer, Francis Noel


Butler, Richard Austen
Holdsworth, Herbert
Patrick, Colin M.


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Hornby, Frank
Peake, Osbert


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Horobin, Ian M.
Pearson, William G.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Horsbrugh, Florence
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Howard, Tom Forrest
Petherick, M.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bllston)


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Christle, James Archibald
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Colfax, Major William Philip
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Colman, N. C. D.
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Pybus, Sir John


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Janner, Barnett
Radford, E. A.


Cooke, Douglas
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Cooper, A. Duff
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Ramsbotham, Herwaid


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Johnston, J. w. (Clackmannan)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Cranborne, Viscount
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Rankin, Robert


Craven-Ellis, William
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)
Ker, J. Campbell
Held, James S. C. (Stirling)


Cross, R. H.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Ranwick, Major Gustav A.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Leckie, J. A.
Rickards, George William


Duckworth, George A. V.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Robinson, John Roland


Duggan, Hubert John
Liddall, Walter S.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward
Spent, William Patrick
Wallace, Captain O. E. (Hornsey)


Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Stanley, Ht. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsand)


Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Stones, James
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Stourton, Hon. John J.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Salt, Edward W.
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
White, Henry Graham


Selley, Harry R.
Sutcliffe, Harold
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Tate, Mavis Constance
Wilson, Clyde T. (Went Toxteth)


Shute, Colonel Sir John
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Simmonde, Oliver Edwin
Thompson, Sir Luke



Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine. C.)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Somervell, Sir Donald
Tree, Ronald
Captain Sir George Bowyer and


Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Sir George Penny.

Ordered, That The CHAIEMAN do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again.—[Captain Margesson.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Six Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.